NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean really? When is there enough bitchin? I say it's way past the point of being sane. I think Bush bashing should be named a actual disorder. Some people do it so much that it isnt healthy.

To be honest tho, these people have a point. I find it hard to get worked up about it myself, but then a again that's what living in the UK does for you.

It's partially their fault, but mostly Bush's fault for making it so damn easy to bitch about him.

It's just something everybody does when there's no better topic at hand.

I mean really? When is there enough bitchin? I say it's way past the point of being sane. I think Bush bashing should be named a actual disorder. Some people do it so much that it isnt healthy.
Sounds like someone has an intimate preference for Michael "Savage" Weiner's laments. How tweet. :rolleyes:

Sounds like someone has an intimate preference for Michael "Savage" Weiner's laments. How tweet. :rolleyes:

Don't know who that is...

Don't know who that is...

His name's 'Wiener' tho. HA.

Don't know who that is...
That's okay, as public faces go, there's already at least "two" of you, and perhaps a few more. You'll hear more even if you don't know you're hearing it from him. You might even think that it's your own thought, kicking around a ruckus way in the back of the old cabesa cavern. It's that kind of movement.

EDIT: Even more than that, these magic little things called "talking points" will help clarify your thoughts! Teehee!

Bush is getting a lotta unfair criticism if you ask me. Everything he has done in this his 2nd term was either necessary or in the benefir of the nation. Even if Iraq had no WMD's, theres no way that you can say that they weren't attempting to gain the knowledge and power. War was necessary to get Saddam out of power. The one thing people need to realize is that harping on bush will not gain anything...so what if his national approval polls are low, he is still president and will remain until his term is up.

That's okay, as public faces go, there's already at least "two" of you, and perhaps a few more. You'll hear more even if you don't know you're hearing it from him. You might even think that it's your own thought, kicking around a ruckus way in the back of the old cabesa cavern. It's that kind of movement.


Can think on my own thanks.

Bush is getting a lotta unfair criticism if you ask me. Everything he has done in this his 2nd term was either necessary or in the benefir of the nation. Even if Iraq had no WMD's, theres no way that you can say that they weren't attempting to gain the knowledge and power. War was necessary to get Saddam out of power. The one thing people need to realize is that harping on bush will not gain anything...so what if his national approval polls are low, he is still president and will remain until his term is up.

Look children, a silly person! *points and laughs at the union confederates*

Bush is getting a lotta unfair criticism if you ask me. Everything he has done in this his 2nd term was either necessary or in the benefir of the nation. Even if Iraq had no WMD's, theres no way that you can say that they weren't attempting to gain the knowledge and power. War was necessary to get Saddam out of power. The one thing people need to realize is that harping on bush will not gain anything...so what if his national approval polls are low, he is still president and will remain until his term is up.

It's probably not very wise to allow someone to have four years to do whatever the hell he wants just because he's "still president". Ideally, any world leader should be challenged to be worthy of the post almost constantly, and if he proves that he's doing it right, then he can stay in place.

Bush is getting a lotta unfair criticism if you ask me. Everything he has done in this his 2nd term was either necessary or in the benefir of the nation. Even if Iraq had no WMD's, theres no way that you can say that they weren't attempting to gain the knowledge and power. War was necessary to get Saddam out of power. The one thing people need to realize is that harping on bush will not gain anything...so what if his national approval polls are low, he is still president and will remain until his term is up.
I think this passage from the OP here sums it up ...:
I think Bush (defend)ing should be named a actual disorder. Some people do it so much that it isnt healthy.

Not much to add, really. Off i go to watch the "Fly vs Fly" Simpsons episode.

Can think on my own thanks.
What if you don't actually know? What if you run on what you think are the facts, but you really don't actually know at all, and take it at face value that the administration has your best interests at heart, and ... COMPLETELY independent of how many times they've been caught lying BOLDFACED they STILL are just getting a raw deal from the governed populace?

It's probably not very wise to allow someone to have four years to do whatever the hell he wants just because he's "still president". Ideally, any world leader should be challenged to be worthy of the post almost constantly, and if he proves that he's doing it right, then he can stay in place.

A monthly review would be justified.

It's probably not very wise to allow someone to have four years to do whatever the hell he wants just because he's "still president". Ideally, any world leader should be challenged to be worthy of the post almost constantly, and if he proves that he's doing it right, then he can stay in place.

Well if you agree or not he did get re-elected. So if opinion polls deem a president "un-worthy" than he should be removed from office? Now I think the thought he is doing something right is subjective to who is doing the thinking.

why wouldnt we continue to harp on a man who is doing such a bad job?

its not like people are still bringing up the '00 election fiasco (well some are, but they are dumbasses). he has done so many stupid/evil/unconstitutional/illadvised things that its hard to remember them all. and just when you get used to one, HERE COMES ANOTHER!

and now he's going to nuke iran? oh yeah, im gonna stop harping NOW.

The one thing people need to realize is that harping on bush will not gain anything...so what if his national approval polls are low, he is still president and will remain until his term is up.
There is still freedom of speech in situations where it doesn't matter if the person is speaking or not.
And it does matter, if Bush had 0% approval it'd be alot harder to get stuff past Congress then if he had the 51% or so he had at election time. They'd all be too afraid to agree with him lest they get voted out of office.

Now I think the thought he is doing something right is subjective to who is doing the thinking.
Aye, there's the rub.
Nitty-gritty.
*nods*

What if you don't actually know? What if you run on what you think are the facts, but you really don't actually know at all, and take it at face value that the administration has your best interests at heart, and ... COMPLETELY independent of how many times they've been caught lying BOLDFACED they STILL are just getting a raw deal from the governed populace?


What if your completely wrong and history proves otherwise? Then what? The last part of your comment. Are you talking about Clinton? As you already know no leader on Earth tells the truth 100%. Afterall they are politicians. ;)

why wouldnt we continue to harp on a man who is doing such a bad job?

its not like people are still bringing up the '00 election fiasco (well some are, but they are dumbasses). he has done so many stupid/evil/unconstitutional/illadvised things that its hard to remember them all. and just when you get used to one, HERE COMES ANOTHER!

and now he's going to nuke iran? oh yeah, im gonna stop harping NOW.

You know that most of the "fiasco's" are trumped up political crap. It is easy to sift through the bullshit of the nations capitol.

He is not going to nuke Iran. Get serious please...

What if your completely wrong and history proves otherwise?
That's the thing. History is already here, and a great many of the facts that condemn the nature of this particular administration are actually facts, and actually history. So the "what if" part is about the same as "what if we had a time machine and went back to kill Hitler"? Then you could be happy with the whole "history proving" thing.
The last part of your comment. Are you talking about Clinton? Are you attempting, ALREADY, as republicans often do of late, to change the subject to arguing about Clinton? No, i'm not talking about him at all. Not only do you sound like you have the itchies for Weiner, you also apparently have some unresolved compensatory issues to deal with. If you like, i'll direct you to the Republican Rap Sheet Version 2.0 by poster Sumamba Buwhan if you need some clarity on this issue.
As you already know no leader on Earth tells the truth 100%. Afterall they are politicians. ;)Actually, neither of us is really likely to know that. But for levity's sake, i'll give you a :D

Now I think the thought he is doing something right is subjective to who is doing the thinking.
Apparently most of the "subjects" think he is doing something wrong?

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

It would stand to reason that you are one of those in the minority?

It would stand to reason that you are one of those in the minority?
Psst ... that would qualify my earlier "echo" insinuation, it makes one feel reinforced to hear the same thing so often!

PostScript: Hi Canuck! Think you might regulate this thread? ;)

I mean really? When is there enough bitchin? I say it's way past the point of being sane. I think Bush bashing should be named a actual disorder. Some people do it so much that it isnt healthy.

No....if your don't criticise the government what is the point of a democracy?

That's the thing. History is already here, and a great many of the facts that condemn the nature of this particular administration are actually facts, and actually history. So the "what if" part is about the same as "what if we had a time machine and went back to kill Hitler? Then you could be happy with the whole "history proving" thing.

Hindsight is 20/20, I don't think any president can be judged effectively until out of office. There are several good presidents in history that were ridiculed while in office. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan to name a few. Don't construe that I am comparing our current president to any of those I listed.

Are you attempting, ALREADY, as republicans often do of late, to change the subject to arguing about Clinton? No, i'm not talking about him at all. Not only do you sound like you have the itchies for Weiner, you also apparently have some unresolved compensatory issues to deal with. If you like, i'll direct you to the Republican Rap Sheet Version 2.0 by poster Sumamba Buwhan if you need some clarity on this issue.
Actually, neither of us is really likely to know that. But for levity's sake, i'll give you a :D

Typical Democrat response and try to attack personally. I am fine and assure you that I have no compensatory issues to deal with. As far as the rap sheet. There are bad politicians. That is par for the course. If someone does a crime do the time. Don't really care what party they come from. That includes people that commit vehicular homicide. Not to mention the odd congresswoman that feels the need to abuse police.

People don't like bush.

If you don't like reading about bush bashing, ignore the people who do it.

No....if your don't criticise the government what is the point of a democracy?

That is the wonder of free speech isn't it. Your free to say anything about the government except of course threatening behavior. But I see people that make it an all consuming facet of there life. That to me is someone that is need of some mental therapy.

Apparently most of the "subjects" think he is doing something wrong?

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

It would stand to reason that you are one of those in the minority?


I always consider polls much like toilet paper. But I don't agree with everything he does nor did I disagree with everything our past president did. I particulary do not like the handling of the budget and immigration issue that is currently at hand.

You know that most of the "fiasco's" are trumped up political crap. It is easy to sift through the bullshit of the nations capitol.

He is not going to nuke Iran. Get serious please...
ya ya he wasnt going to invade iraq either. if we dont strongly oppose the idea, he could do anything.

Hindsight is 20/20, I don't think any president can be judged effectively until out of office. There are several good presidents in history that were ridiculed while in office. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan to name a few. Don't construe that I am comparing our current president to any of those I listed.
It isn't 20/20 with these damned hind-cataracts! :D
Seriously, that's not even true. I'll skip sounding too preachy and say there's myriad history-oriented issues that come up on this thread that would tend to qualify my statement. If i were interested in a 'jack, i'd give the "Easter" example, for which you would show how clarity on how "20/20" people's perception of that particular instance is. But i won't. Just a nibbler.



Typical Democrat response and try to attack personally. WHO brought up the democrats first as a change of subject from your own OP? :rolleyes:
BTW, i've mentioned several times that i'm not a democrat, things are a smidge more complicated to some people, and obviously NOT to others.
I am fine and assure you that I have no compensatory issues to deal with.That may be true but you sure come across like you do.
As far as the rap sheet. There are bad politicians. That is par for the course. If someone does a crime do the time. Don't really care what party they come from. That includes people that commit vehicular homicide. Not to mention the odd congresswoman that feels the need to abuse police.It's a good thing that no republicans had the chutzpah to step up and show how "even" the "two" parties are as corruption goes. The invitation was even extended, and no takers, sadly enough.
Ooh, off today's presses, just to keep focus here (being all topical and all ... ;) :

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/04/17/ap2675500.html
Jury Finds Former Ill. Gov. Ryan Guilty
By MIKE ROBINSON , 04.17.2006, 06:19 PM
Former Gov. George Ryan was convicted of corruption Monday in the scandal that ended his political career in 2003 at the same time he was winning international acclaim for commuting the sentences of everyone on Illinois' death row.

Ryan, 72, sat stone-faced as the verdict was read, and vowed afterward to appeal.

He was convicted of steering state contracts and leases, including a $25 million IBM computer deal, to political insiders while he was Illinois secretary of state in the 1990s and then governor for one term. In return, he got vacations in Jamaica, Cancun and Palm Springs, and gifts ranging from a golf bag to $145,000 in loans to his brother's floundering business.

"I believe this decision today is not in accordance with the kind of public service that I provided to the people of Illinois over 40 years, and needless to say I am disappointed in the outcome," the Republican former governor said.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald called Ryan's actions "a low watermark of public service." Fitzgerald, who also led the Washington investigation of the CIA leak, added: "If they keep stealing, we'll keep chasing them."

The jury in the state's biggest corruption trial in decades found Ryan guilty on all counts, including fraud, lying to the FBI and racketeering conspiracy, which alone could bring 20 years in prison at sentencing Aug. 4.

His co-defendant, Chicago businessman Larry Warner, 67, was convicted of racketeering conspiracy, fraud, attempted extortion, and money laundering.

Prosecutors also want the two men to forfeit the $3 million they say Warner raked in through state business. The judge will rule on that request later.

Ryan was the third former Illinois governor in the past three decades to be convicted of federal felonies. Otto Kerner was found guilty in a racing stock scandal; Dan Walker was convicted of corruption involving bank loans.

"I hope this case begins the end of political prostitution that seems to have been evident in the state of Illinois and begins a resurrection of honest government and services in this state that so many people have demanded," said Robert Grant, the agent in charge of the FBI's Chicago office.

The scandal that led to Ryan's downfall began over a decade ago with a fiery van crash in Wisconsin that killed six children. The 1994 wreck exposed a scheme inside the Illinois secretary of state's office in which truck drivers obtained licenses for bribes.

The probe expanded to other corruption under Ryan. Seventy-nine former state officials, lobbyists, truck drivers and others have been charged. Before Ryan's trial, 74 had been convicted, including Ryan's longtime top aide, Scott Fawell, a star witness at Ryan's trial.

In 2000, Ryan, as governor, declared a moratorium on executions in Illinois after 13 death row inmates were found to have been wrongly convicted. Then, days before he left office in 2003, he emptied out death row, commuting the sentences of all 167 inmates to life in prison. He declared that the state's criminal justice system was "haunted by the demon of error."

Ryan declined to seek a second term after the scandal sent his approval ratings plummeting. He was indicted a year after leaving office.

Even as he faced charges back home, Ryan accepted speaking invitations across the country and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his criticism of the death penalty.

Neither Ryan nor Warner took the stand during their six-month trial.

The government witnesses included businessman Harry Klein, who testified that he entertained Ryan and his family at a luxurious estate in Jamaica every year for a decade. Klein said Ryan always paid him $1,000 a week with checks, but then accepted the $1,000 back in cash.

Jurors said no single factor tipped the balance in favor of conviction.

"It wasn't a smoking gun," said Kevin Rein of Glen Ellyn, a carpenter. He said "the government had a pretty good pile of evidence."

In late March, months of testimony nearly went down the drain when the judge discovered two jurors had failed to mention arrests on their court questionnaires. Rather than declare a mistrial, U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer decided to replace the two jurors with alternates and, over the objection of Ryan's attorneys, ordered the jury to start deliberations over.

The jury had deliberated for 10 days when it announced its guilty verdicts.

Ryan attorney Dan K. Webb, a former federal prosecutor, zeroed in on the judge's decision to replace the jurors as potential grounds for appeal.

---
Now since a lot more went down with the Abramoff threads, i think this'll suffice.

Psst ... that would qualify my earlier "echo" insinuation, it makes one feel reinforced to hear the same thing so often!

PostScript: Hi Canuck! Think you might regulate this thread? ;)
No I don't think so!! :)

However, I do find it kind of ironic that the OP disses people who continue to harp on Bush as dumbasses, whilst taking a swipe at Clinton in a later post. :eek:

Or my own state's former governor John 'kickback' Rowland. :P

As far as Bush bashing goes, I don't think it's completely fair. Afterall, it isn't as if he's actually done anything. :p

People don't like bush.

If you don't like reading about bush bashing, ignore the people who do it.
Ah, to be fair, i don't bash the guy's ability to clear brush ... well, except for this particular incident ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001326.html?sub=AR

Oooh, abrasions aren't funny on such a pristine, simian visage.

Or his ability to ride a bike in the fashion of "fitness" he is so heralded for ...

http://www.theallineed.com/news/0507/068221.htm

erm ...

Perhaps his ability to safely ride a Segway?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2989000.stm

... uhm ...

I know! His ability to safely EAT!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1758848.stm

---Lookie that! Not-a-ONE CNN link! Hoo-rah! :D

Seriously, accidents aren't funny. They're the second- or third-leading cause of death, i think.

That is the wonder of free speech isn't it. Your free to say anything about the government except of course threatening behavior. But I see people that make it an all consuming facet of there life. That to me is someone that is need of some mental therapy.

Expressing your opinion is not bad, but those dedicated people (not all consuming facet...that's exaggerating) are one of the key ingredients for social and governmental reform and political action!

No I don't think so!! :)

However, I do find it kind of ironic that the OP disses people who continue to harp on Bush as dumbasses, whilst taking a swipe at Clinton in a later post. :eek:
Well, it would appear par for the course. Kinda Corneliu-esque, at least, in the earlier days!

It isn't 20/20 with these damned hind-cataracts! :D
Seriously, that's not even true. I'll skip sounding too preachy and say there's myriad history-oriented issues that come up on this thread that would tend to qualify my statement. If i were interested in a 'jack, i'd give the "Easter" example, for which you would show how clarity on how "20/20" people's perception of that particular instance is. But i won't. Just a nibbler.

If someone doesn't understand what and where Easter is than they are clueless. That doesn't include this fellow.


WHO brought up the democrats first as a change of subject from your own OP? :rolleyes:
BTW, i've mentioned several times that i'm not a democrat, things are a smidge more complicated to some people, and obviously NOT to others.

Clearly on subject of talking about the President(s)

Walks like a duck, well you know the rest...


That may be true but you sure come across like you do.

I would suggest in the future not to stoop to a personal attack. Just mitigates the point you trying to get past.

It's a good thing that no republicans had the chutzpah to step up and show how "even" the "two" parties are as corruption goes. The invitation was even extended, and no takers, sadly enough.
Ooh, off today's presses, just to keep focus here (being all topical and all ...

Not a Republican but will point out voter fraud and a stolen governship in my home state of Washington by the Democrats.

As far as your last part. If you do a crime as a politician do the time. I am 100% fair in this arena.

Expressing your opinion is not bad, but those dedicated people (not all consuming facet...that's exaggerating) are one of the key ingredients for social and governmental reform and political action!

Political dissent in moderation is the key to Democracy. But there is a point where it goes to far. No matter what idealogy you come from.

If someone doesn't understand what and where Easter is than they are clueless. That doesn't include this fellow.
So then you've seen the current threads about Easter, including Tropical Sands's thread about pagan influence on Christian holidays? That's basically why i brought it up. Perhaps, though, since you seem to hold a conviction, you might indulge us as to why there's bunnies laying chocolate eggs and what the hades that has to do with "Jesus". I'd understand if you didn't, since it's already been done on other threads.


Clearly on subject of talking about the President(s)

Walks like a duck, well you know the rest...Well, i do know since you're the OPr, you can run the thread as you see fit (to a point), but you did quite clearly shift the subject.



I would suggest in the future not to stoop to a personal attack. Just mitigates at what point you trying to get past.I said "appears", as it does, thusly. Personal or otherwise. Besides, i don't know you personally, and you don't know me personally ... i'll also point out that you don't know me well enough to know if i'm a democrat or not, but that didn't stop you from implying as much. Good thing i didn't take it too personally, methinks!


Not a Republican but will point out voter fraud and a stolen governship in my home state of Washington by the Democrats. Could be. It wouldn't be the first time and wouldn't be the last.
I've posted, as CanuckHeaven may recall, that the democrats in MY state are trying to get the Diebold voting records for our state, and are being blocked ... not because they feel like they'd been slighted, but because they feel that the REPUBLICANS were unfairly underrepresented! That says a lot about their character ... there doesn't appear to be that kind of fairness on the part of Republicans ... ESPECIALLY recently.

As far as your last part. If you do a crime as a politician do the time. I am 100% fair in this arena.WooT! I suppose you would also mean, not changing the rules about getting caught for what when you're the majority, as well? I asked Corneliu this and he STILL hasn't indulged me with a coherent reply on the issue.

Political dissent in moderation is the key to Democracy. But there is a point where it goes to far. No matter what idealogy you come from.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
--Shrubya, at a Press conference at the Texas State House, May 21, 1999

It objectivity an issue here?

I'll stop criticizing him when he stops fucking up.

Really, the question aught to be, how many times does he have to fuck up before defending him becomes an issue? Aren't you becoming enablers? It's an abusive relationship-time to get out...

And to suggest that it is anything but our duty to question our leadership flys in the face of the very concept of our nation. To hear it come from a party that spent $10 million tax payer dollars to find out about a blow-job, very disingenuous.

I mean really? When is there enough bitchin? I say it's way past the point of being sane. I think Bush bashing should be named a actual disorder. Some people do it so much that it isnt healthy.

There isn't enough bitchin' until he's impeached, or otherwise removed. America's finally starting to figure out what the rest of the world has been saying since his first election: Bush is an idiot, irresponsible, and generally horrible.
Now certainly isn't the time to STOP saying that, when America is finally starting to question his ability to lead.

I mean really? When is there enough bitchin? I say it's way past the point of being sane. I think Bush bashing should be named a actual disorder. Some people do it so much that it isnt healthy.

Have you checked Bush's approval ratings recently?

Especially given their relative popularity, were Clinton bashers also insane?

Political dissent in moderation is the key to Democracy. But there is a point where it goes to far. No matter what idealogy you come from.

Come now. Dissent has not gone too far unless there is a clear and present danger to the public.

Have you checked Bush's approval ratings recently?

Especially given their relative popularity, were Clinton bashers also insane?
Nah, just terribly preoccupied with non-Victorian sexual attitudes ... perhaps a hint of envy and delight punctuating each eager tongue.

I mean really? When is there enough bitchin? I say it's way past the point of being sane. I think Bush bashing should be named a actual disorder. Some people do it so much that it isnt healthy.

Bush Derangement Syndrome does indeed have a name. :D

And you are soooo right about it not being healthy. :eek:

Take a look at a typical liberal and see for yourself. ^_~

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/portrait_of_a_moonbat/

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20112_WaPo_Profiles_Loony_Left_Blogger&only

"SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. - In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day..."

Let's face it, Bush is the only reason some of these poor libs have to live since they have made him so completely the center of their lives that they no longer have the ability to think of anything else. When he leaves office half the Democrats and 1/4 of the European Left will all curl up and die since they'll no longer have anyone left to hate. ^_~

*snicker* ^~^

Bush Derangement Syndrome does indeed have a name. :D

And you are soooo right about it not being healthy. :eek:


*snicker* ^~^
I got it now! You're one of The UN abassadorship's puppets! *nods emphatically* ;)

I got it now! You're one of The UN abassadorship's puppets! *nods emphatically* ;)

Well *of course*! *Everybody* except you is actually The UN Ambassadorship's puppet. You and he are the only non imaginary people on the entire Net and since you yourself are actually a figment of his imagination as well that means you'll have to convince him that you have an independent existence so he doesn't disbelieve you. ^_~

I'll stop criticizing him when he stops fucking up.

Really, the question aught to be, how many times does he have to fuck up before defending him becomes an issue? Aren't you becoming enablers? It's an abusive relationship-time to get out...

And to suggest that it is anything but our duty to question our leadership flys in the face of the very concept of our nation. To hear it come from a party that spent $10 million tax payer dollars to find out about a blow-job, very disingenuous.
The bolded part is my favorite sentence of the thread so far. :)

I have never understood this "heck of a job" attitude that, no matter how badly the guy in charge -- of whatever -- screws up, he can't ever be criticized for it, let along fired. Bush-worship is just the most extreme example. I guess Bush really is the corporate president because this kind of wankerism is rife among corporate executives. It's why so little gets done nowadays -- actually doing a job is no longer a requirement.

The bolded part is my favorite sentence of the thread so far. :)

I have never understood this "heck of a job" attitude that, no matter how badly the guy in charge -- of whatever -- screws up, he can't ever be criticized for it, let along fired. Bush-worship is just the most extreme example. I guess Bush really is the corporate president because this kind of wankerism is rife among corporate executives. It's why so little gets done nowadays -- actually doing a job is no longer a requirement.

Other way around. You have the right to say what you wish even when it's drivel but everyone else has the right to point out that you're speaking drivel. Not our fault that Maryscott O'Connor has become the essence of who you guys are. :p

Well *of course*! *Everybody* except you is actually The UN Ambassadorship's puppet. You and he are the only non imaginary people on the entire Net and since you yourself are actually a figment of his imagination as well that means you'll have to convince him that you have an independent existence so he doesn't disbelieve you. ^_~
Ah, i don't have that kind of time. I'd even walk away thinking i was in on it. Besides, some people are under the impression that i'm Gymoor II:the Return's puppet. The great cosmic onion, methinks.

Not our fault that Maryscott O'Connor has become the essence of who you guys are. :p
Oh bullsh*t. It is *exactly* YOUR fault. It's the kind of stuff you never STFU about. You even have talking-point distributions about it to ensure it since most of you are apparently too slow to catch the specifics without repetition ad nauseum.

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the "truth" to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."- George W. Bush,
at the Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY

Besides, you're betraying the repub assessment of Cindy Sheehan being the essence of who you want to attack.

I'll stop criticizing him when he stops fucking up.

Really, the question aught to be, how many times does he have to fuck up before defending him becomes an issue?

Spot on.

Other way around. You have the right to say what you wish even when it's drivel but everyone else has the right to point out that you're speaking drivel. Not our fault that Maryscott O'Connor has become the essence of who you guys are. :p
Also, i should add that i hope you have a good sense of humour about yourself. You're going to need it by the time Murvyets is through with you.

The one thing people need to realize is that harping on bush will not gain anythingIf enough people harp on him, maybe he'll be impeached.

I don't think any president can be judged effectively until out of office. There are several good presidents in history that were ridiculed while in office. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan to name a few.Reagan was justifably ridiculed while in office, he only accomplished anything good by accident.

Also, i should add that i hope you have a good sense of humour about yourself. You're going to need it by the time Murvyets is through with you.
Don't jinx me. :p

Ah, i don't have that kind of time. I'd even walk away thinking i was in on it. Besides, some people are under the impression that i'm Gymoor II:the Return's puppet. The great cosmic onion, methinks.

Oh dear, that would be dreadful. I never did understand the obsession some poor bakas have with trying to "prove" that the person behind one pseudonym is the same as the other. Since it's all psuedonyms anyway who freaking cares? o_O

Ah, i don't have that kind of time. I'd even walk away thinking i was in on it. Besides, some people are under the impression that i'm Gymoor II:the Return's puppet. The great cosmic onion, methinks.

I thought you were Kievan-Prussia's puppet.

OWW! What, it was a joke, OWWWW, calm do-OWWW HEY!

Oh dear, that would be dreadful. I never did understand the obsession some poor bakas have with trying to "prove" that the person behind one pseudonym is the same as the other. Since it's all psuedonyms anyway who freaking cares? o_O
Actually a few people have apparently *NO* usable sense of paranoia here, and don't mind sharing some things that are probably better left to anonymity.
There's the pix threads and a few other things where, if someone were so inclined, that someone could punch the abacus and make some people's lives a shade or two different and terrifying.
I don't mind people thinking that i'm a puppet so long as i don't lose my nation over it. *shrug*

Other way around. You have the right to say what you wish even when it's drivel but everyone else has the right to point out that you're speaking drivel. Not our fault that Maryscott O'Connor has become the essence of who you guys are. :p
I have no idea who you are talking about, and you have no idea who you are talking to, so kindly don't waste everybody's time tossing about obscure references that I guess you think are pejorative but which in fact mean nothing to anybody. If you have an argument for why it's such a big horrible thing if people criticize Bush -- or even if people enjoy criticizing Bush -- then make it, please.

By argument, I mean something beyond "oh, it's just you libs, neener-neener." That just gets buns thrown at you.

I thought you were Kievan-Prussia's puppet.

OWW! What, it was a joke, OWWWW, calm do-OWWW HEY!
:D
Twenty lashes and a quick jaunt on the plankie for you, arr!

Well, being harped at is a very small price to pay for dragging the country through the mud like he's done, so I think he's facing only a lenient response and should be thankful.

:D
Twenty lashes and a quick jaunt on the plankie for you, arr!
*Supplies plank:

http://www.a1sailboats.com/images/pirat.gif

Oh bullsh*t. It is *exactly* YOUR fault. It's the kind of stuff you never STFU about.

Well, of course Straughn. How *dare* we not shut up? Aren't we supposed to understand that Freedom of Speech is only for the Left? How dare we lowly commoners act as if it Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press were something for everyone, right? :p

"You even have talking-point distributions about it to ensure it since most of you are apparently too slow to catch the specifics without repetition ad nauseum."

Nah, I picked one blog for the picture and one blog for the quotations because I knew that most libs wouldn't figure things out unless they read it twice. Got to make it easy for you guys, y'know. ;)


Besides, you're betraying the repub assessment of Cindy Sheehan being the essence of who you want to attack.

Why would I want to attack Casey Sheehan's mom? I'm not even attacking this poor bimbo. I'm merely pointing her out as an example of what you guys have become. Is it my fault that you don't like what you see? Would it help if I give you some more examples so you get the point as to how silly you guys are making yourselves? I'm going to bed soon but coming back tomorrow and showing a few more choice cases shouldn't be too hard if that's what you really want. :)

Don't jinx me. :p
I'm sorry. I should know that the very luminary nature of your conflagrative responses shine brighter than any praise i could heap .... ;)

I'm sorry. I should know that the very luminary nature of your conflagrative responses shine brighter than any praise i could heap .... ;)
Have you been playing mad-libs with your thesaurus again? ;)

I mean really? When is there enough bitchin? I say it's way past the point of being sane. I think Bush bashing should be named a actual disorder. Some people do it so much that it isnt healthy.

some are some are not. it goes down to this, do they have some type of reason besides "he has a funny accent" or "my friend says he sucks so i think he sucks". i cant stand people that would say dumbshit because everyone else is saying it. there are people that say he is the worst president ever and then you ask them why?, and all they can answer you is " because he is stupid". they cant give any actual reason.

if you do have good reason, then i dont mind, go ahead say all you want, just dont whine when i bitch about those on your side or some of your policy ideas.
and please stop teaching the weak minded new issues they have no idea what they are complaining about :headbang:

*goes onto mumbling to myself*

Well, of course Straughn. How *dare* we not shut up? Aren't we supposed to understand that Freedom of Speech is only for the Left? How dare we lowly commoners act as if it Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press were something for everyone, right? :p
Ah, i didn't TELL you to shut up, i just said you *never* STFU about it! Unless there's a direct implication to one of you and Abramoff, then it's all mum and let's move on to attacking Kennedy again :rolleyes:

Nah, I picked one blog for the picture and one blog for the quotations because I knew that most libs wouldn't figure things out unless they read it twice. Got to make it easy for you guys, y'know. ;)Should i call you late to the party? I got you first! :)

Why would I want to attack Casey Sheehan's mom? I'm not even attacking this poor bimbo. I'm merely pointing her out as an example of what you guys have become. Is it my fault that you don't like what you see? Would it help if I give you some more examples so you get the point as to how silly you guys are making yourselves? I'm going to bed soon but coming back tomorrow and showing a few more choice cases shouldn't be too hard if that's what you really want. :)
Oh don't run out on me now! So far, i'm an assailant; a democrat; AND a bereaved mother, as well as Kievan-Prussia's puppet! I'd say i have a strong investment in seeing you follow through here! It appears i have *quite* a rep to live up to!

Have you been playing mad-libs with your thesaurus again? ;)
That was the best roll i could conjure while my wifey was on the phone with me. *shrug*

I have no idea who you are talking about,

Well, the fact that you are willing to admit your ignorance is a start. :)

and you have no idea who you are talking to,

Am I supposed to care? :rolleyes:

I have no doubt you are very important to yourself but that's as far as it goes until I know you myself. :p


" so kindly don't waste everybody's time tossing about obscure references..."

See Straugn? I *told* you that some libs aren't bright enough to understand things unless you make them read it twice. ^_~

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/portrait_of_a_moonbat/

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20112_WaPo_Profiles_Loony_Left_Blogger&only


If you have an argument for why it's such a big horrible thing if people criticize Bush -- or even if people enjoy criticizing Bush -- then make it, please.

Has there been any criticism in this thread so far? Or merely the howls of sore losers? Let me know when you guys come up with something coherent and perhaps I'll respond as to adults. For the moment I will merely exercise my own right to say that I think you are being idiots. By all means deliver Mr. Bush of all manners of spurious judgements so that I may judge *you* in return. Or did you really think that the right to criticize means that you don't have the right to be criticized yourselves?

By argument, I mean something beyond "oh, it's just you libs, neener-neener." That just gets buns thrown at you.

So you libs would hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourselves to? o_O Fair enough since that does imply you guys regard the Right as your intellectual superiors. :) But once again I say Freedom of Speech is a 2way street. You may have the right to toss buns at me but then I have the right to toss buns at you. You may criticize Mr. Bush or any other GOPer including myself but it is the right of everyone to tell you that you are full of it. You guys do not get entitlements to a double standard in your favor however much you may wish it.

And with that cheerful thought I wish you good night. See ya tomorrow and if you right a coherent criticism of Bush I may attempt an equally thoughtful response. ;)

Ah, i didn't TELL you to shut up, i just said you *never* STFU about it! Unless there's a direct implication to one of you and Abramoff, then it's all mum and let's move on to attacking Kennedy again :rolleyes:

Heh. OK, distinction made. ^_^

Should i call you late to the party? I got you first! :)

Fair enough. Then you get dibs on me tomorrow. ;)


Oh don't run out on me now! So far, i'm an assailant; a democrat; AND a bereaved mother, as well as Kievan-Prussia's puppet! I'd say i have a strong investment in seeing you follow through here! It appears i have *quite* a rep to live up to!

And I have no doubt you'll do that rep all the justice it deserves ;) But I do have to be at work at 6 tomorrow. Meh, today now! :(

Tell you what. Go ahead and post anything you want to say now and I'll go ahead and answer tonite. Try not to lose any reputation points til I get back to you. ;)

I mean really? When is there enough bitchin? I say it's way past the point of being sane. I think Bush bashing should be named a actual disorder. Some people do it so much that it isnt healthy.

Under that logic, all opinions are disorders.

At best, this thread contains several pages' worth of pure flamebait and trolling from both sides. Reviewing it, I am therefore locking it, and encourage the OP or another to make a thread to discuss whether or not Bush is doing a good job.