View Full Version : Top Ten "Bushisms" of 2004
#10: "I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me." -Nashville, Tenn., May 27, 2004
#9: "Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appalling." -Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004
#8: "Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat." -Washington, D.C., Sept. 17, 2004
#7: "I want to thank the astronauts who are with us, the courageous spacial entrepreneurs who set such a wonderful example for the young of our country." -Washington, D.C. Jan. 14, 2004
#6: "We will make sure our troops have all that is necessary to complete their missions. That's why I went to the Congress last September and proposed fundamental - supplemental funding, which is money for armor and body parts and ammunition and fuel." -Erie, Pa., Sept. 4, 2004
#5: "After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week - we will have an all-volunteer army!" -Daytona Beach, Fla., Oct. 16, 2004
#4: "Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a - you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." -Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004
#3: "I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." -second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004
#2: "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." -Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004
#1: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
---------
What I find even more hilarious then these awesome quotes, is that I can't believe people are taking tabs on how stupid Bush is. All you have to do is watch the man on TV for 2 secs during one of his scripted speeches or non, and point out how close his IQ is to a bag of sand.
The proof is in the pudding my friends!!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/movies/0805041bush.mov
JohnTheHenchman
10-20-2005, 12:00 AM
He got better grades than Kerry!
Scorpio24
10-20-2005, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
He got better grades than Kerry!
Yep teachers at George's school just loved Mrs bush's home made pie.
outsyder
10-20-2005, 12:01 PM
Winston Churchill was a known alcoholic, smoker, and had a serious speech impediment.
What's your point?
notchreturns
10-20-2005, 03:27 PM
:p
someguy
10-20-2005, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by outsyder
Winston Churchill was a known alcoholic, smoker, and had a serious speech impediment.
What's your point?
Stop whining, everyone does dumb things and it's funnier when the people who are more popular or powerful do it :)
EVILxxx
10-20-2005, 11:32 PM
#5 should be higher on the list.
Winston Churchill was a known alcoholic, smoker, and had a serious speech impediment.
The man had several strokes! Give him a break.
And the man was way more educated than Bush was.
He was also far more likable than Bush is.
I could go on comparing the two, but why bother....
Stop whining, everyone does dumb things and it's funnier when the people who are more popular or powerful do it
Sure everyone does dumb things. People make mistakes all the time. But that excuse cannot be given over and over again to one person ruling the most powerful country in the world.
Or do you want the leader of your country to be a dimwit, just so you can poke fun at him each time he does something or says something stupid?
The people vote for the best person that represents them.
I guess the best person to represent the US has to be a moronic puppet. What does that say about the 50+ percent who voted for him? :confused:
Originally posted by Vong
The people vote for the best person that represents them.
I guess the best person to represent the US has to be a moronic puppet. What does that say about the 50+ percent who voted for him? :confused:
It says that we don't have enough rational choices among the candidates offered in an election. Did you have another thought there??
Mr-Blonde
10-21-2005, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Vong
The people vote for the best person that represents them.
I guess the best person to represent the US has to be a moronic puppet. What does that say about the 50+ percent who voted for him? :confused:
It shows that evangelicals in this country were more worried about homosexual marriage and "family values" than reelecting an encumbent president who lied to the world in order to justify an illicit and immoral campaign in Iraq.
Even worse, there are still those who continue to buy into the lies and tow the GOP party line.
http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/6492/cletus6hp.gif
The Heart Collector
10-21-2005, 05:28 PM
Why do we call it Bushisms? Let's call it for what it is: dumbfuckery.
outsyder
10-21-2005, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Vong
The man had several strokes! Give him a break.
And the man was way more educated than Bush was.
He was also far more likable than Bush is.
I could go on comparing the two, but why bother....
His academic education was not too execeptional. With the exception of one or two subjects in school, he did very poorly. As a young man he joined a military college and became a war correspondent for the Boer War.
Bush is regarded as a cokehead alcoholic, when guys like Churchill and Kennedy, etc. had the same kind of problems (even DURING their time in politics), and yet they have never been criticized to the amount Bush is.
Let's just be fair, people.
MacReady
10-21-2005, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by outsyder
His academic education was not too execeptional. With the exception of one or two subjects in school, he did very poorly. As a young man he joined a military college and became a war correspondent for the Boer War.
Bush is regarded as a cokehead alcoholic, when guys like Churchill and Kennedy, etc. had the same kind of problems (even DURING their time in politics), and yet they have never been criticized to the amount Bush is.
Let's just be fair, people.
Last time I checked, both of those world leaders passed on a long time ago. Bush still remains. And so does the fact that the President Of The United States dosen't even appear to be able to speak english at times.
It says that we don't have enough rational choices among the candidates offered in an election. Did you have another thought there??
It's called voting for a third party, or not marking your ballot at all.
Last time I checked there was a Reform party still in the US...why not give them a try?
EVILxxx
10-23-2005, 10:23 PM
Personally I think people are taking this thread too seriously.
I mean let's face Bush has said alot of dumb things. None of them really bother me, but most of them are funny. This doesn't need to to turn into another "Is the Iraq War Good or Bad" thread.
The board already has about a hundred of those.
Originally posted by Vong
It's called voting for a third party, or not marking your ballot at all.
Last time I checked there was a Reform party still in the US...why not give them a try?
Not that third parties are bad. Hell, I'm waiting for the right one to come along. What I'm referring to by rational choices are parties that create real competition, not just brushed aside like flies buzzing. I'm not really a fan of partisan politics myself, but I'm not going to blame the voting public for a lack of competent candidates, either. And even then partisan politics has taken its toll on everyone's confidence in choosing an independent candidate in the first place. The more parties/candidates, the better.
outsyder
10-23-2005, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by jeo4
Not that third parties are bad. Hell, I'm waiting for the right one to come along. What I'm referring to by rational choices are parties that create real competition, not just brushed aside like flies buzzing. I'm not really a fan of partisan politics myself, but I'm not going to blame the voting public for a lack of competent candidates, either. And even then partisan politics has taken its toll on everyone's confidence in choosing an independent candidate in the first place. The more parties/candidates, the better.
The thing about a 2+ party system is that everything becomes extremely partisan. Quite often in American politics, members of opposite parties will support the other's bill or motion, etc. without any thought of the politically strategic importance. When you have minority governments, then things get all the more strategic and things can take a lot longer to pass through. I know what you're going after, and I think the US could use a few more parties to run a threat, but a 2+ party system isn't much more of a peachy situation.
The Postmaster General
10-24-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by outsyder
Bush is regarded as a cokehead alcoholic, when guys like Churchill and Kennedy, etc. had the same kind of problems (even DURING their time in politics), and yet they have never been criticized to the amount Bush is.
As far as drugs go - Churchill aside, even in Kennedy's days, that was years before they even began scheduling drugs, making them illegal for consumption -- so you are comparing Kennedy taking drugs legally with Bush taking the illegally
I'm also going to take into account that over 40 years ago, we didn't have the same awareness of drug and alcohol abuse/problems. We had an iota of the reseach and awareness that we had in the 1970s.
To say that Bush should get a free ride because leaders of the past did is like saying that a company that dumps toxic waste into the rivers shouldn't get guff because back before the 70s, companies did it all the time. So, to be fair, you shouldn't slight a garage for dumping anti-freeze down the toilet - people used to do it all the time.
Kind of like the Bill Maher joke about The Andy Griffith Show - back then Otis was a funny guy who drank too much. Now he's not so funny because we can see he has a problem.
And the last time I checked the history of political humor -- It would only be unfair if we DIDN'T make fun of our elected leaders.
But hey, if you want to justify Bush's drug use in regards to the opinion that drug laws are stupid - then I will agree. I'm not one of the people who slights Bush's partying daze. The man knew how to do a keg stand, and apparently that's enought to get you into the office of US President now-a-days.
And I agree with Vong's sentiments that our leader represents our people. Make of that what you will, but it is true.
The thing about a 2+ party system is that everything becomes extremely partisan.
That is not neccesarily true.
If you look at Canadian politics and other liberal democracies with a multi-party system, you'll see that partisan politics is barely noticable.
Leaders can change depending on their stances on certain issues, which is generally how elections work. Successful parties capture the ‘spirit of the age’ amongst the populace. However, if you only have two candidates fighting for leadership, that gives you only two views. Both of which may not be in your favor.
This is why I really feel sorry for Americans and their political system. It's formed mainly on a two-party system with a third that regretably counts as a "throw-away-your-vote" party. There will be a moment in the future, though, where the public will call "reform" and create a new party against the two elites. You may think this is difficult, but if you look at Canada for example; in the last 50 years we have sprouted 7 federal parties, one of which is aimed at destroying Canada (I'm referring to the Bloc...though the Conservatives fit that picture too :p )
outsyder
10-26-2005, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Vong
That is not neccesarily true.
If you look at Canadian politics and other liberal democracies with a multi-party system, you'll see that partisan politics is barely noticable.
Um, what?!
When you have more than two elements, the political game becomes all the more important. If there are only 2 parties, alliances are not needed at all. One party will always have a majority. When everything you do could have implications on future inter-party relationships, the system grows more partisan. More lines need to be drawn and parties are looking to differentiate themselves more considering there's always an alternative. For instance, tonight in the House, there was a motion to remove the massive rent that a FUCKING HOSPITAL pays to the federal government for using it's land. No other hospital on government property in the country has a massive rent fee such as this. It was a bill set forth by the Conservatives (the party you think is out to 'destroy' Canada). The Conservatives supported it, and the NDP did. Of course, the Liberal party voted it down, with the help of the Bloc. A hospital. A fucking hospital that needs all the money it can get. And you're telling me that every single Liberal and Bloc member voted this down because of their conscience? It makes me fucking sick.
More party politics bullshit.
Dude, I don't know what you might be thinking, but the partisan politics I'm thinking about is that between the candidates, their parties, and the constituents. Partisan politics refers to dedication and support given from the voters to their parties. A "partisan" is someone who votes for one party and never bothers to consider another.
Partisan politics becomes weaker as the number of parties grows. This is shown very clearly in Canadian politics. With more than 2 parties to choose from, voters have a wide variety of candidates to best represent them, and according to the average voter, they have no distinguishable party label. So, come election time, the voter will vote for the candidate that best suits to his/her needs or views, without considering the candidates party lineage.
This is only one factor to partisan politics decline. There are others.
Partisan politics still exists, don't get me wrong. But the number of partisans have declined in the last 20 years.
outsyder
10-27-2005, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Vong
Dude, I don't know what you might be thinking, but the partisan politics I'm thinking about is that between the candidates, their parties, and the constituents. Partisan politics refers to dedication and support given from the voters to their parties. A "partisan" is someone who votes for one party and never bothers to consider another.
Partisan politics becomes weaker as the number of parties grows. This is shown very clearly in Canadian politics. With more than 2 parties to choose from, voters have a wide variety of candidates to best represent them, and according to the average voter, they have no distinguishable party label. So, come election time, the voter will vote for the candidate that best suits to his/her needs or views, without considering the candidates party lineage.
This is only one factor to partisan politics decline. There are others.
Partisan politics still exists, don't get me wrong. But the number of partisans have declined in the last 20 years.
I was referring more about the politicians themselves rather than the voting populous.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.