Bush Busted On Pre-scripted Battle Banter (Video)

[ChadTower]

Don't hurt yourself overreaching for that joke.

[DrewKaree]

My back is now killing me softly. 

[ChadTower]

It is a less than competent killer, as you are still posting.

[DrewKaree]

I can't seem to stop this.  Someone beat the Flack outta me

[ChadTower]

his back is killing him softly with his song
killing him softly
with his words
killing soooooftlyyyyyyyy
with his sooooooooooooooooooong

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He's a terrible reader.  He couldn't see any positive outcome from rubbing his Gentiles in the open wound

Hey, Drew, suck my hezbollah's.   

mrC

[ChadTower]

Oy, it's so huuuuumorless.

[DrewKaree]

He's a terrible reader.  He couldn't see any positive outcome from rubbing his Gentiles in the open wound

Hey, Drew, suck my hezbollah's.   

mrC

Kiss my Hamas

[Dartful Dodger]

I am appalled by this pre-scripted thread.

[ChadTower]

If we're taking prescriptions, I like vicodin.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I am appalled by this pre-scripted thread.

Right on cue!!! Perfect!


mrC

[DarkKobold]

I don't think Chad or Drew could ever be scripted. They lack predictability. And by predictiability, I mean....

humor, sense, gonads, strife, and non-partisianship.

[DrewKaree]

I don't think Chad or Drew could ever be scripted. They lack predictability. And by predictiability, I mean....

humor, sense, gonads, strife, and non-partisianship.

I DO have a lovely bunch of coconuts, though. 

[Stingray]

I don't think Chad or Drew could ever be scripted. They lack predictability. And by predictiability, I mean....

humor, sense, gonads, strife, and non-partisianship.

I DO have a lovely bunch of coconuts, though. 

I hope this isn't in refernence to your kidney stones.

-S

[ChadTower]

I don't think Chad or Drew could ever be scripted. They lack predictability. And by predictiability, I mean....

humor, sense, gonads, strife, and non-partisianship.

There comes a point where the term gonads understates the description.  There comes a point where one must start using more accurate terms because the standard term is just not enough.

I prefer grapefruits.

Come check 'em out.

[Havok]

I think we need to get back to the thread topic, namely that Bush sucks.

Hey - how about a new slogan?

"Can't wait for 2008?"

Kinda catchy...

[ChadTower]

So, who do the Dems think is going to actually run?

[Stingray]

I think we need to get back to the thread topic, namely that Bush sucks.

Hey - how about a new slogan?

"Can't wait for 2008?"

Kinda catchy...

-S

[ChadTower]

I can't wait for Bush to be out of there either... but getting Bush out is only half the issue.

[shmokes]

Is negativist a word?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That is the easy half, the half the negativists are focusing on.

Are you OUT of your mind? Of course he leaves in 2008, but he needs to be out of there yesterday. I don't think America can stand another 3 years of that fool.

Easy? There's a Republican house and senate, impeachment will be far from easy.

There is a more important aspect to all of this that people should focus on.

Again, I think holding presidents to account for their failure to our nation is a pretty important aspect. Future leaders need to see the price of hubris and incompetence. But if you're OK with letting Bush off the hook for all the things that supposedly "bother you"...hey, who am I to tell you how to respect and care for your country?

mrC

[ChadTower]

I never said to let him off, but until someone has proven he has committed crimes that are impeachable, I am not going to bother trying to get him out now.  Try to focus on the realistic because we both know (you just SAID it) that with a Republican House and Senate he's not going to be impeached without personally killing someone on live TV.

The practical thing to do is to fight his policy while preparing for his replacement.  If Dems can't prepare for his replacement, when time comes to have a replacement, Dems will be behind the 8 ball again, just like they were in 2004.

Kerry winning the primary surprised nearly all experts.  Why?  Why didn't the Dems' own experts know that was going to happen?  Why were they all so convinced Dean was a shoo in?  When Kerry won, the whole process was thrown for a loop, and they never recovered enough to win.  Focusing nearly all energy on taking Bush down will result in that happening again in 2008 and the price could be (Jeb) Bush for another 4 years.

Could you try posting in a debate without the facetiousness? 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So, who do the Dems think is going to actually run?  We can assume Clinton... who else?  A lot of people I know who are Democrats won't vote for Hillary on principle.

It's three years out...can't even begin to guess who'll be involved. If the price for getting Bill Clinton back into the White House (even as First Lady) is Hillary...I'm willing to deal. I'm not that enthusiastic about her, but we'll see how she does in the primaries.

I'm pretty solid on my desire for Wesley Clark as VP. I thought Kerry should have chosen him as a running mate in '04.

As for Republicans, I won't vote for a Republican on, as you say, principle. They've coddled this administration and enabled one failure after another. They've run the show for the past five years and there is no way they can blame anybody else but themselves. They are a corrupt, incompetent party and they need to be moved as far away from power as is possible. I can only hope that the Dems will do better. Maybe being the minority party will have humbled them come time to lead. I do believe, however, that their is NO WAY any other party could be as corrupt as the current GOP is.

Here's what I think of the possible (R) ticket so far:

Frist = No chance. The conservatives will have to find another lamb to sacrifice to the Dobson-wing of the Republican party.

Guiliani = Weasel. Had tremendous respect for him after 9/11, but he pissed it away once he became Bush's lapdog in '04. I can't forgive Guiliani for blaming the troops for not securing the weapons dump in Iraq (Al QaQaa), even though the Bush administration forced these men to march toward Baghdad before the site could be secured. The explosives stolen from that dump are still being used to kill out soliders, to this day. His subservience to Bush will come back to haunt him if he runs.

McCain = Holds the most promise, but there's no way the Dobson-wing would support him, and without them the Republicans are toast. I don't think he'll be able to distance himself far enough from Bush before '08 anyhow.

Romney =  Waffles worse than Kerry. Don't think he'd hold up under heavy scrutiny. Plus he's a Mormon. The Talibornagains won't have that.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I never said to let him off, but until someone has proven he has committed crimes that are impeachable, I am not going to bother trying to get him out now.

And how, exactly, do you think we'd ever find out about impeachable offenses? By sitting back and waiting? A lot of people have been working very hard to hold Bush and his administration accountable for their failures. Forcing senators to ask the right questions, acting as watchdog and making their grievances heard. Sitting on your hands isn't a solution.

Could you try posting in a debate without the facetiousness? 

Can you post something that bears even a modicum of reality? It just sounds like apathetic apologia to me. I've said it before, but you are apparently too dense or stubborn to get it into your head...BOTH can be done at the SAME TIME. Bush can be held accountable AND we can move the country forward. In fact, the first is essential to the other.

Is this so hard for you to understand? Personally, I think your refusal is based on your defensiveness. To attack the Bush administration is to attack certain aspects of your ideology, since you exhibit conservative leaning politics. It's hard to be critical of oneself, much better to focus on something else.



mrC

[ChadTower]

BOTH can be done at the SAME TIME. Bush can be held accountable AND we can move the country forward.

This gov't can't tie shoes and talk at the same time.  There is no way they can focus on getting Bush out while also preparing a quality successor. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

BOTH can be done at the SAME TIME. Bush can be held accountable AND we can move the country forward.

This gov't can't tie shoes and talk at the same time.  There is no way they can focus on getting Bush out while also preparing a quality successor. 

That's why I'm saying the responsibility falls on us as citizens to make sure that both are happening. Of the people, by the people, for the people...remember?

If enough people are focusing on these tandem responsibilities, there'll be no shortage of resources, solutions and accountability.

Again, you can't have progress without accountability.

I don't have faith in very many things, but I am confident that if the citizenry of any nation can get off it's collective lazy a--, things can be done right. We are in the situation we're in now because people refused to think critically, instead they allowed themselves to be ruled by fear, and had complete "faith" in gov't to protect them. That faith was misplaced.




mrC

[ChadTower]

I don't have faith in very many things, but I am confident that if the citizenry of any nation can get off it's collective lazy a--, things can be done right.

Not going to happen.  Just won't.  If you can't get people to stop doing things they know will kill them with immediacy (e.g. drunk driving, smoking, rampant obesity), there is zero chance they are going to stand up and take on more abstract tasks like governmental reform. 

We can't get a majority of people to show up one evening a year and draw an X in a little box.  How are we going to get them to research issues, keep track of the performance of elected officials, and vote them out of office should they not perform?  They won't show up to elect them in the first place, it is no longer possible to get them to show up, stay vested in the process for years at a time, and then show up again at the end of the term.

[Dartful Dodger]

It's three years out...can't even begin to guess who'll be involved. If the price for getting Bill Clinton back into the White House (even as First Lady) is Hillary...I'm willing to deal. I'm not that enthusiastic about her, but we'll see how she does in the primaries.

This is why the guy you voted for lost last time.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Not going to happen.  Just won't.  If you can't get people to stop doing things they know will kill them with immediacy (e.g. drunk driving, smoking, rampant obesity), there is zero chance they are going to stand up and take on more abstract tasks like governmental reform. 

We can't get a majority of people to show up one evening a year and draw an X in a little box.  How are we going to get them to research issues, keep track of the performance of elected officials, and vote them out of office should they not perform?  They won't show up to elect them in the first place, it is no longer possible to get them to show up, stay vested in the process for years at a time, and then show up again at the end of the term.

I guess I'm being too allegorical, since I agree with your general statement. I don't expect all members of our citizenry to exert this effort. It only takes specific individuals to take these tasks on for them, then disseminate and energize other members of the populace. A general "call to arms" will cull these truly progressive individuals out from the crowd and like a small ripple, local, then state, then federal...political change laps at the shores of Washington. Sure, it's idealistic, but it's also the very spirit of the foundation of America.

How are we going to get them to research issues, keep track of the performance of elected officials, and vote them out of office should they not perform?

Funny that you mention this, as I also see it as the primary problem. Thus, I've been working on a project (as a team member, through donated time) with members of MIT, and private investors, on a program that will encourage participation in our political process, and allow everyday, average Joes to effectively utilize their time addressing the issues they feel compelled to work on.

Think of it as an open-source 'operating system' for the progressive movement. It provides the research, it will eventually track the performance of elected officials, through a system of regional representatives, and more. It will track individual member effectiveness, make suggestions on how to be more limited and efficient (live database of local 'action items') and encourage competition through a merit system. This group has been working on the project for several years now, and I think it holds a lot of promise. It isn't public yet, but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

All sounds vague right now, but I can't get into specifics (N.D.A). Drew and DD will use this as a rallying cry to ridicule me, since it bothers them that I work on issues anathema to their own interests, but don't let it be said that I'm not working on solutions to move the country forward...while, AT THE SAME time, working to hold my current elected leaders accountable.

I'm no Thomas Jefferson, but I feel I've donated just enough time and money to be proud of what I do.



mrC

[ChadTower]

I guess I'm being too allegorical, since I agree with your general statement. I don't expect all members of our citizenry to exert this effort. It only takes specific individuals to take these tasks on for them, then disseminate and energize other members of the populace. A general "call to arms" will cull these truly progressive individuals out from the crowd and like a small ripple, local, then state, then federal...political change laps at the shores of Washington. Sure, it's idealistic, but it's also the very spirit of the foundation of America.

Unfortunately, it is the spirit of what America WAS.  You know, before cable TV and VCRs.  Now, the only way you would get the majority of Americans out of their house on any given night would be to shut down television broadcasts that night.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "well, I would have voted, but I didn't want to miss American Idol."

The worst one to hear is "yeah, I didn't vote because I didn't want Gore or Bush, I wanted Nader, and there was no possible way for Nader to win."  How exactly do these people expect Nader, or any third party candidate, to ever win if no one goes out and votes for them?  What if there are 3 million people out there thinking that way?  There probably aren't 3 million, but there are hundreds of thousands more than there were ten years ago, and if all of those people vote now, ten years from now there could be 3 million total.  These people want the two party system to change but can't be bothered to spend 1 hour out of 8760 in a given year to do their part.

All sounds vague right now, but I can't get into specifics (N.D.A). Drew and DD will use this as a rallying cry to ridicule me, since it bothers them that I work on issues anathema to their own interests, but don't let it be said that I'm not working on solutions to move the country forward...while, AT THE SAME time, working to hold my current elected leaders accountable.

Anything that holds elected officials accountable is good to me.  I don't even really care if the process supports viewpoints in conflict with my own so long as it brings in public servants that care about the will of the people and work hard to make it happen.  When that occurs, I consider it my own responsibility to change the will of enough people such that my own will is the will brought forth.  If I can't do that then there is probably a good reason my will isn't the public will and I can accept that the majority is still being heeded properly.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This is why the guy you voted for lost last time.  You're willing to back someone you're not enthusiastic about.

A good healthy dose of skepticism toward our leaders is healthy and essential to the preservation of America. You Bush fanatics can't fathom that, thus we're seeing the problems we're seeing today (Iraq, record deficit, diminished respect for America around the world, corporate largesse, rampant cronyism, corruption throughout government, Plame, Frist, Rove, DeLay).

You put too much 'faith' in your leader, and relinquished your responsibilities as a citizen. You don't deserve a vote.


mrC

[ChadTower]

I am of the belief that much of that stuff has always existed, it's just that Bush is a very extreme example of that behaviour, has had more of it blow up in his face than past administrations, and is far more open about it than anyone before him.

Not that that excuses it in any way, but believing he is the only one to have done any of this is probably either naive or deluded.

[Dartful Dodger]

Not that that excuses it in any way, but believing he is the only one to have done any of this is probably either naive or deluded.

It's more like self preservation.  If the best you can do to promote your team is to bring down the other team, then as bad as your team is, that's how hard you have to try when attacking other team.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Unfortunately, it is the spirit of what America WAS.  You know, before cable TV and VCRs.  Now, the only way you would get the majority of Americans out of their house on any given night would be to shut down television broadcasts that night.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "well, I would have voted, but I didn't want to miss American Idol."

Always, in the back of my mind, is the nagging realization that a large part of American apathy is brought about by comfort, complacency born of the privilege of living in a modern superpower. The 'Orange Revolution' in the Ukraine (which was, ironically enough, spurred on by conflicting exit polling results) was successful due in large part to the countries socio-economic status and the general disillusionment among the populace. It's unfortunate, but it seems like America is headed toward self-destruction, and only then, once this administration's failed policies hit home, will more Americans be compelled to take their country back.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's more like self preservation.  If the best you can do to promote your team is to bring down the other team, then as bad as your team is, that's how hard you have to try when attacking other team.

Wah!!! The oppressed majority! Give me a break Dartful..."Teams"? There's your problem right there. You're the one whose apparently put party before country.

Would you support Bush if he had made all the same promises, and all the same decisions he's made, yet was a Democrat?

EDIT:

I am not willing to "deal", I want what's best for this my country.

This is another problem you have...it's not *YOUR* country...it's everyone's. Even people you disagree with.


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

You are wrong again.

I don't have a problem.

My TEAM won, so it is MY country.

[ChadTower]

It's unfortunate, but it seems like America is headed toward self-destruction, and only then, once this administration's failed policies hit home, will more Americans be compelled to take their country back.

It is not only this administration's policies that have brought this on.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Not that that excuses it in any way, but believing he is the only one to have done any of this is probably either naive or deluded.

When you say "this"...what do you mean exactly?

If "this" equals:

- Sent our country to war with Iraq using faulty intelligence, leading to the needless deaths of almost 2000 American soldiers.
- Refused to acknowledge real intelligence leading up to 9/11.
- Has forgotten about Osama Bin Laden. The one who actually attacked us.
- Attempted to privatize Social Security.
- Promised to AMEND to the constitution to remove liberties for individuals.
- Oversaw the creation of the 'Patriot Act' unduly removing certainly liberties from us all.
- Spent more Federal money than FDR! With NOTHING to show for it.
- Drove the national deficient to record numbers.
- Flew in overnight to sign a bill to save one brain-dead women, yet stayed on vacation for 3 days while an entire American city was destroyed by hurricane.
- Refuses to acknowledge "global warming."
- Believes he's been appointed by God.
- Sanctioned the removal of the Geneva Conventions from modern U.S. warfare.
- Sat back while his minions outed a CIA agent for political retribution, an agent tasked with tracking actual WMD.
- Has cultivated a cultural divide in this country, more severe than I've ever seen before.
- Appoints political cronies to some of the highest positions in the land.
- Oversees a White House that allows the likes of Rove, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Jack Abramoff and Dick Cheney to flourish.

Yeah, I'd say he *IS* the only one to have ever done "this"...so an order of magnitude of pissed-off is called for. You dilute the severity of this administration's behavior by acting as if everyone is as corrupt as the current GOP. Politicians may not be angels, but the implications in your statement are simply not true, and are in fact, (to use your own words) naive, deluded and an unhealthy amount of jaded.

I'm supposed to be the pessimist here, and you're bringing *me* down. Sheesh.




mrC

[ChadTower]

I'm referring to the larger picture. 

Cronyism has always existed, as has nepotism, incompetence, and 100 other things.  It was always hidden before, and much of the venomous reaction to it now is because people think it's new.  It is not.

I'm not going to address the rest of those points, as many of them are completely valid, while some of them are stupid, some of them clearly predate Bush, and some of them are plain wrong.

[Dexter]

- Flew in overnight to sign a bill to save one brain-dead women, yet stayed on vacation for 3 days while an entire American city was destroyed by hurricane.

This one has only clicked with me now that you mention it. Cheers for that Mr. C, it pretty much sums up the administration - pander to the god squad, stuff the needy.

Edit : The onion do it again! Bushes not-so-candid chat

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41845