bush want's you to know what he thinks of you....

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:15 am

http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov

just his way of saying "thank you for voting my ass back in for the next few years.."

moo

Post by **linflas** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:53 pm

omg

*forwarding to all my friends*

Post by **Gambit37** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:50 pm

I'm no fan of Bush, but it's basically him just fooling around 'off camera' and being, uh, human -- and we've all probably done that. However, no president should be sitting in front of a camera doing that for fear of exactly this kind of leak. What a cretin.

I loved the front page headlines the next day over here. While I would not want to upset any American's here who may have voted for him, I can't help but quote this one:

"How can 59,712,638 people BE SO DUMB."
(or whatever the figure was).

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:57 pm

Treating every recording device as a live recording device should surely be survival trait no. 1 of any politician!

To answer Gambit's question:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3981669.stm

Post by **Lunever** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:59 pm

Well, he became president by illegally manipulating the elections 4 years ago even without having been in power prior to that and proved that he is not what the so-called religious right credits him to be: A man with honor. Now he had 4 years in power to prepare his next coup: Recount-proof election machines in his brother's state and malfunctioning election machines in the black quarters of republican-led Ohio. For 4 years the only benefitor from 911 was critizised for not having been legally elected, but now he finally has been managing to leave that argument behind. Poor America, such a disgrace for such a proud democratic tradition.

Post by **Paul Stevens** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:50 pm

How can 59,712,638 people BE SO DUMB

That seems to be about the limit of most democrat's argument. It used
to upset me but now I just consider the source.

Besides, us really DUMB people should be easily manipulated by all
those really SMART people. What went wrong?

Poor America

I don't really feel THAT poor. Judging by the number of people trying to
get into this country, I don't feel alone in this.

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:47 pm

The golden rule - never discuss religeon or politics

Post by **Paul Stevens** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:50 pm

religeon or politics

Is there a difference?

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:53 pm

lol, not getting suckered into that one : )

Post by **Lunever** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:21 pm

Actually in a modern democracy there SHOULD be a difference, but reality often does not match with this principle.

Jardice · Post by **Jardice** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:39 pm

From the looks of that link that Beowuff posted..I'm not surprised by the reason as to why people voted him back into office. I figured that was one of the big factors in the voting.

Post by **PaulH** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:42 pm

Curiously, 59,712,638 is about the population of the UK...

Des · Post by **Des** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:53 pm

I blame The Guardian (British liberal intellectual newspaper) - they ran a letter / email writing campaign to urge people in Ohio to vote for Kerry. The negative backlash from this could just have swung it Bush's way, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections20 ... 58,00.html
(if you haven't seen this before a good laugh is guaranteed).

Perhaps a more effective anti-Bush contribution from the UK would be to show "The Power of Nightmares" documentary series in the USA. This was about how the neo-conservative group have used bogus scare stories over the years to control the populace by fear.

Post by **PaulH** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:05 pm

Lord Chaos = Bin Laden: evil, cunning and can never find him
Lord Librasulus = George Bush: appears friendly, but will kick you in the teeth if given too much power
Grey Lord = Tony Blair: Certainly greying, not much use and needs somebody to get him out of the mess he's in
Lord Order = Senator Kerry: Attempts to bring order to the world have failed

Post by **Lunever** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:07 pm

Isn't Lord Order the same as Lord Librasulus?

Jardice · Post by **Jardice** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:18 pm

Des wrote:I blame The Guardian (British liberal intellectual newspaper) - they ran a letter / email writing campaign to urge people in Ohio to vote for Kerry. The negative backlash from this could just have swung it Bush's way, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections20 ... 58,00.html
(if you haven't seen this before a good laugh is guaranteed).

Perhaps a more effective anti-Bush contribution from the UK would be to show "The Power of Nightmares" documentary series in the USA. This was about how the neo-conservative group have used bogus scare stories over the years to control the populace by fear.

Wow that's alot of negativity, what did they write in that letter anyway?

You were right though, I did get a good laugh out of it.

Post by **PaulH** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:20 pm

Librasulus is the Grey Lord after Lord Chaos has been released from his being

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:27 pm

I dunno, someone labled as the worst president ever by his OWN people should not have gotten that many votes. Unfortunately I don't know enough about Kerry to be able to truley decide if he was a worse idea.

This video, just shows how childish he is. He didn't really grow up. That in itself is not a bad thing but should someone like that be running the country?

Other questions come to mind. For example why name off the enemy of 9/11 as Bin laden.. and then rather than go find him... attackSadam? Not only that but when he calls on the Allies to help him beat the snot out of someone who has NOT openly on camera infront of the whole world admited having any responsibility for 9/11, we decline (it's obvious to us even at that point there is something wrong with this idea) and he names us as bad guys..

So MR.Stevens.. could you enlighten us non americans as to how Kerry was a worse choice since through your offence.. it would be assumed you voted for Bush? or is that just a bad assumption and you are playing devils advocate?

moo

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:28 pm

Lunever wrote:Isn't Lord Order the same as Lord Librasulus?

You said it! Oh wait, you were talking about DM...

Ok, the american election is over...can we in britain now concentrate on getting some real opposition to the labour party to make our election more interesting? At the moment the biggest opposition to labour seems to be...labour!

Post by **PaulH** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:37 pm

This threads gonna be even longer than the scroll one... Bush attacked Saddam because he couldn't find Osama. He had to bring blood to the beying Americans. Saddam was an easier target which would yield quicker results (or so he thought) on 'the war on terror'. Helps that the country is on top of large reservoirs of thick black stuff, but thats another story. BUT if Bush wants to rid the world of terror, or evil dictatorships (didn't find any weapons, so had to change his reasons) then shouldn't he be sending troops to Zimbabwe and a host of other nations?

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:40 pm

oh it was explained just recently by annother american friend of mine.. "the evil you know vs the evil you don't"

According to my source Kerry didn't really tell what his plans were for the states.

That I guess I can understand as a reason not to trust him.. but it still amazes me..

moo

Post by **Lunever** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:44 pm

Well, a German cabaretist made up the theory that the weapons of mass destructions are hidden beneath that thick black stuff and that the Americans altruistically have taken the hard task upon themselves to pump up that stuff so they can get at the WOMD.

Post by **PaulH** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:52 pm

Excellent!

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:55 pm

I think it's wrong to pick on Bush's sense of humour, at least he has one. And Bush has definitely been decisive over the last four years. I am just not a fan of any of his decisions. On the world stage he has been aggressively confrontational. From an outside viewpoint the internals freedoms in america slowly being eroded scare me.

I don't think he is as stupid as people think he is by a long shot. But I also don't think he is as clever as he thinks he is either. Kerry seemed to be a more intellectual candidate, but really, how did he get to be the democratic nominee? And where was any sign he was actually able to make a decision? None I could see.

I think the events of the last three - four years mean we need some extraordinary leaders. Poeple who can make the hard choices. Even better, for the correct reasons and in the correct ways.

Afghanistan was already a target I believe, possibly due to terrorist worries. And no-one had done anything about Iraq in many years since it the first invasion.
I just don't believe that Bush made a tough choice in invading either place, and so therefore has persude it very aggressively without reservations. I would have prefered a leader who was upfront with his intentions, who had the right intentions, and who while capable of responding to any aggression would seek to mitigate it, not use it themselves first, and would certainly has the foresight to realise the distabilising effect of any action.

At least Blair has shown that he has weighed and considered options, has tried to negotiate and mitigate, but has lost any credibility by the means he has used to push his decisions.

sucinum · Post by **sucinum** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:55 pm

kerry has failed to be a proper alternative imho. i also think that bush got many votes from the bin laden-video which appeared "coincidental" before the elections. quite clever strategy.
the german yellow pages compared it to schröder's strategy he used at the last elections. but schröder is no warfaring and money-wasting idiot

Post by **PaulH** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:03 pm

I am not sure Blair has weighed up the options and outcomes fully. It seems to be whatever Bush wants, we will follow. The Black Guard is a good instance of this, and was a blatant electorial move by Bush to try and show Americans that he has international support knowing full well Blair would say yes. Blair was in a hard place, I agree. But in Bush's eyes, you are with him or a supporter of terrorism.

Post by **Paul Stevens** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:05 pm

So MR.Stevens.. could you enlighten us non americans as to how Kerry was a worse choice since through your offence.. it would be assumed you voted for Bush?

Oh, dear......did I say that either Bush or Kerry was the better choice?
I did not mean to. I will have to go back and read what I said.

I think that anyone, democrat, republican, libertarian, communist, socialist,
labor, etc. etc. etc. will find that when it comes to winning friends and
influencing people......it is not too bright to start with a personal insult.
I thought I said that my experience is that this is all too common among
Democrats. And they especially like to attribute stupidity to President Bush.
My advice is that this will only put Bush supporters immediately on the
defensive and not likely to hear any arguments.

As to how I voted......that's a private matter. The fact that I did vote is
public record. I'd be happy to take either side of the argument. There is
plenty to say both good and bad on either side. Believing that one is all
good and the other is all bad amounts to a kind of religion. (I almost voted for
Ralph Nader as a protest against both. Thank goodness 58Mega-people did not
do that!)

Post by **PaulH** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:14 pm

He Beo, should we be in the pub on Nov 5th, celebrating the demise of the greatest terrorist of all?

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:20 pm

lol, it's raining up here, so a pub rather than a beach front is definitely a better place to be. Happy Guy Fawkes night!

I think the fact that Blair was fighting so much for anyone else to support the various incursions, and the UN resolution for Iraq, showed he did know all the ramifications.
The fact he seemed to age about twenty years over the six months leading up to Iraq would also prove it.

The fact we are still heavily embroiled and that we have had two inquiries into the information we were given about the war shows the decisions themselves and the means maybe aren't as morally unambiguous as they should have been. And yes, Blair definitely seems to be just hanging on and going with the flow.

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:21 pm

Wow, the fireworks are still going off here! Maybe they from the damp fuses finally reaching the rockets?