Why do I love George Bush?
 

How come this dude is still around? Shouldn't one of his secret service agents have pushed him down a stairwell by now? Jeez!

Because the majority of Americans believe George is right and you're a whacko. :smack:

I am longing to save energy up here in northern Idaho. If the Law of the Conservation of Matter won't work, I'm certain that remaining on daylight saving's time will.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to catch a few photons on the steps to the Science Building before enduring the last round of my class on "Science for Humanities Majors" before the weekend.

Much as i do hate georgie-porgie, it's not really him doing all this stuff. It's the man behind the curtain---CHENEY. And his cronies. Bush is simply a mouthpiece and I'm beginning to suspect that he is figuring out his GOP will leave him to drown in his own stew. They don't care about him, and he's finally 'getting' it. That's why he looks so weird lately. Well, that and they put a new chip in his neck...

I love George Bush's wrinkled forehead always suspended on a moment of incomprehension.

US president hurt and sent to hospital because of a pretzel !
Endless imagination to find new weapons !

I vote to call them "freedom pretzel" :)

the majority is half wrong about that.

:lol2:

Because, next to him, I'm a good actor.

Have you heard the audio (real media only, look for "Hear the rehearsal" under picture) of the prep for this? It's understandable that this kind of thing has to be arranged. I have to make conference calls from time to time and it takes some planning. You can't just ring'em up and start chatting. And clearly the White House staff went to considerable effort to get this thing together, he's the freakin' President fer cryin out loud. Understandable.

But to claim that it's not scripted, which is exactly the term the (I'm sure now former) staffer uses, is just not believable. To say "the President just wants to chat" is completely bullsh*t. The whole thing is stage managed from soup to nuts and any other characterization is just delusional self denial. Not. So. This was a total public relations effort. Now quit wasting my oxygen.

edit: wrestled with links, won at last

Marichiko, your poll is AFU. It's because not one of your answers is right.

But should I expect something different from someone as stupidly resentful as yourself?

Rhetorical question.

I like my man George enough to vote for him both times because he treats tyrannies the way they ought to be treated -- as test ranges for new weapons systems, new strategies, new stratagems, and new modes of warfare upon tyrannies. Stomping out tyrannies is always good. Making democracies grow from the ashes is even better. Your AFU poll, Mari, included none of this, which leaves it lame -- it doesn't have legs. This is because you can't credit these ideas as real. Your view is too narrow, too parochial.

I like the so-called "neocon agenda." It's more of a disparately-aimed general tendency of mind than an organized, prioritized agenda. The revenge of the West upon the totalitarian oppressors is both awesome and salutary. It's even good for Mari, though she will neither understand nor admit this.

You know, UG, I'm sure you've been asked before, but where in the hell inthe Constitution does it say we have to fight other people's wars for them? We managed to overthrow British rule, how come other countries just don't do the same or else be left to rot? :eyebrow:

Well, Marichiko: put up with the rampant evil of totalitarianism much? :eyebrow: You can bet both cheeks of your ass that you do, you who glory in your miserable shame! I, on the other hand, do not, even while acknowledging that foreign policy decisions involve trying somehow to reconcile diametrically opposed imperatives -- as in Azerbaijan.

That, dear Marichiko, is why I'm a better human being than you are. You're not going to rise to my level until you start thinking more like me. For an instance, I'm not selfish about good governance; it need not be the exclusive property of the United States of America. I've been around the world and I've seen bad governance and I've seen what it does to the human spirit. The human world needs less of that, and more democracy.

As for just leaving them to rot, have you considered what happens when the resulting abscess in the global body politic breaks? General war, as a rule. Have you not railed against the expenses of war? Your policy would engender a great many extra wars.

This kind of myopia is why I keep telling you, and expect to keep telling you for the next forty years, by which time I'll be ninety and you may be dead, that you're old enough to know better than this.

UG, where is the US military presence in Rwanda, in N. Korea, in China, in the "K-stan" republics that are lapsing back into dictatorship and totalitarism? Where is the US military in Sri Lanka, site of what has got to be one of the most unjust and deadly civil wars in recent history? What about the "disappeared" in Argentina? What about the "killing fields" of Cambodia? Where were we, then? The US cannot go to war on behalf of every oppressed people on the face of the planet. Your argument holds no merit.

Even if the US could engage in endless military actions, it is a well known fact that people don't appreciate the things that are handed to them on a silver platter. If your theory were correct, then I would submit to you that the rest of the world's people needs to grow up and stop acting like spoiled teenagers who want someone else to do their homework. The US needs to stop worrying about everyone else's freedom and watch dog its own.

Calling your opponents names will not win them over to your side. I sir, am an ass, and will remain so, call me however many perjoratives you wish, until your fingers grow stiff from carpel tunnel syndrome.

Why wonder, when it is clear that the problems presented by these four-plus trouble spots could be solved by the application of infinite manpower and infinite funds?

We have neither, therefore strategy is necessary. I understand this, even if you pretend you don't. Think, woman, think.

You sympathize with the views of the likes of Tom Tomorrow and Ted Rall, for... Jay-zus. (The one being to all intents and purposes a dilute version of the other, and every bit as actually funny.)

My overriding and I believe permanently standing point, you vis-à-vis me, is that you could be something better than an ass. Your reluctance to be so constitutes no deficiency on my part. Who does that leave, the Dalai Lama??

Who is Ted Rall? I am always interested to hear of potential sympathizers to my decidedly iconoclastic and largely irreverent philosophy re politics and life in general.

The last person who mentioned His Holiness, the Dali Lama, to me was an unrepentant criminal. Why are you bringing the Dali Lama into your reply? Are you suggesting that you emulate him or are you requesting of me that I do so? The Dali Lama is unashamedly pacifist, by the way.