George Bush slays me.

[NattyLight]

I am NOT your typical Bush hater (I voted for him) but come on, this is just staggering.

http://drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

I seriously feel sorry for him.

[Rocky21]

Arbustos es en grande idiota!

[Brown 43]

So what? This guy is mocked for everything he does! He has mexican family, I think? He speaks spanish and he said "No" to the newly writtin Star Spangled Banner in spanish.

[EersSkins05]

Arbustos es en grande idiota!

I think his name is still "Bush" in Spanish... lol j/k

But this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. After his campaign against McCain in 2000 (where he essentially said that McCain's days in the POW camps made him crazy and couldn't be trusted to run the country), I was ready to believe he'd do anything to be elected.

[chomerics]

After his campaign against McCain in 2000 (where he essentially said that McCain's days in the POW camps made him crazy and couldn't be trusted to run the country), I was ready to believe he'd do anything to be elected.

Not just Bush, but ANY politician, he's just managed to sink the lowest we've seen so far in a presedential campaign. . .but that wasn't Bush right?

I remember when McCain called him out in a debate and told Bush "You should be ashamed of yourself" Then I lost respect for McCain when he campaigned with Bush in 04', just goes to show you nothing in politics in suprising

[Air Force Cane]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"...

wow, he sang a few words with potential voters. the song they were talking about last week was a NEW anthem changing the words.

could you be more petty?

[HailYeah]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"...

wow, he sang a few words with potential voters. the song they were talking about last week was a NEW anthem changing the words.

could you be more petty?

So because the song he sang wasn't the remix it is petty and no one should talk about it?

Maybe it is. Beleive me, I'm not up in arms about this. But you have to admit, its kind of hilarious. :laugh: I wonder if he would have sung it in French to grab a few votes.

[RabidFan]

in 2000 he also campaigned on the fact he thought nation building was wrong and an arrogant practice.

[Rocky21]

in 2000 he also campaigned on the fact he thought nation building was wrong and an arrogant practice.

You aren't saying Bush is a flip flopper, are you? :laugh:

[Zguy28]

Not just Bush, but ANY politician, he's just managed to sink the lowest we've seen so far in a presedential campaign. . .but that wasn't Bush right?

:laugh:You're kidding right? I know you're well researched and such.

Ever seen the campaigns of old like the 1884 election. I swiped this from a USA Today article:

In a world without Internet gossips like Matt Drudge and the venomous exchanges on cable TV, voters were told that Democrat Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock and Republican James Blaine had penned incriminating letters about a shady railroad deal. But the campaign's low blow came six days before the election when a minister, introducing Blaine at a New York City rally of clergymen, depicted the Democrats as the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion."

This nasty ethnic swipe at Cleveland's Irish Catholic supporters gave the Democrats the ammunition they needed to carry pivotal New York by 1,149 votes. And in an eerily contemporary twist, the Democrats quickly organized a committee of volunteer lawyers to make sure that Cleveland's victory survived the recount.

or

1828 John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson

One of the greatest misconceptions of modern presidential politics is that campaigning gets dirtier every year.

The "attack ads" take offensive precedence above substance and the press exposes bare the private lives of our public figures. Many refer to the good ole days of the last century when noble politicians debated issues of substance. Yet dirty campaigns have been with us since our first presidential campaign—George Washington ran unopposed.

Mudslinging Reached New Heights

But even among a long history of dirty campaigning, the Campaign of 1828 stood out as the worst. Attacks on Jackson were unparalleled in American political history. His opponents accused him of murder, gambling, slave trading and treason. They called him a 'military chieftain,' and said his mother was a prostitute, his father a mulatto man, and his wife a bigamist. "Mrs. Jackson once found her husband in tears pointing to a paragraph reflecting on his mother and said, 'Myself I can defend; you I can defend; but now they have assailed even the memory of my mother."

Due to the awkward circumstances surrounding their marriage, unfortunately some elements of the story of Rachel and Andrew's marriage were true according to the law. Rachel and Andrew were living as husband and wife for two years before they found out that her first husband had actually never completed the divorce. She was still technically married to Lewis Robards. This made Rachel Jackson a bigamist and an adulteress and Andrew Jackson a man of questionable character. Robards did finally move forward and obtain a divorce in 1793. For the record, Andrew and Rachel married in Nashville in 1794. During the campaign Jackson's opponents retold the story accusing Jackson of dishonorable intentions and Rachel of unfaithfulness.

Meanwhile, Jackson supporters were by no means innocent. Adams was accused of installing gambling tables in the White House at the public expense, of padding his expense account, and even of pimping women for the Tsar of Russia.

[Bang]

We act surprised that a politician panders to the voters?

Give it a rest.

Politicians = whores.

~Bang

[Peregrine]

lol, see, this is what you get when you pander to voters instead of your principles. Any politician who tells you what you want to hear instead of what their principles are, which is actually all politicians save a few, is basicaly a liar. Very few good politicians these days. As they say, all the smart ones are in corporate business. Thats why we have the idiots we do.

[HailYeah]

We act surprised that a politician panders to the voters?

Give it a rest.

Politicians = whores.

~Bang

Whores, yes.

But I dont think anybody is acting surprised. Its just that the hilarity is multiplied when a politician who is supposed to represent the party that values values is caught whoring it up so blatantly. I'm not surprised that this gets brushed off so easily. But it makes me laugh.

[Prosperity]

We act surprised that a politician panders to the voters?

Give it a rest.

Politicians = whores.

~Bang

yup and I will go one step further.

As bad as most politicians are they do what they do to get our votes. Minus any covert vote rigging everything the winning politicians do is pretty much supported by their voters. So our politicians are a reflection of us. The worse they are, the dumber we are.

[vinva]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"...

What does that have to do with anything...defend Bush on his own merits, not compared to Clinton.

[Baculus]

Yes, Bush is a politician, and like all politicians, he lies. But wait! Wasn't Bush supposed to be "different" and was going to bring honesty and integrity to the White House? Isn't he supposed to be a Christian that avoids such sinful behaviour as mistruths? And I thought Bush was supposed to bring a new era to politics in Washington?

We now know that is complete bunk. He is just as conniving as any other slimy politician, and you have to take his actions, and his words, with a grain of salt. So, please, for the Bush supporters, spare me any such talk of "pettiness" when we all know that some members of Bush's party make a living out of taking petty issues and enlarging it to absurd proportions.

The odd thing is seeing books that discuss Bush in glowing, almost Biblical terms. Obviously, the writers of such books have never read "The Lies of George W. Bush," which discusses, page after page, of Bush's issues with the truth. And since this Druge Report article discusses Bush's 2000 campaign efforts, it is worth reading "The Lies of George W. Bush" and seeing the sheer number of half-truths that Bush purveyed during that particular campaign. It is simply incredulous.

[HailYeah]

What does that have to do with anything...defend Bush on his own merits, not compared to Clinton.

Its the same deflection attempt that all coservatives use as their "ace in the hole." Bush lied? Well, "I did not have sexual realtions with that woman." What do ya got to say to that?

I was wrong about people brushing this off, however. Apparently Bush thinks this issue is important enough to warrant a response. And what a response it is. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/04/bush.spanish.ap/index.html

[chomerics]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"...

wow, he sang a few words with potential voters. the song they were talking about last week was a NEW anthem changing the words.

could you be more petty?

i was talking about push polling in South Carolinia and telling republican voters that McCain had an out of wedlok child while in Vietnam (he adopted a Vietnamese baby). Or how they said he was brainwashed while a POW in Vietnam to mention a few things. .

So, if you knew what I was talking about, would you have still used the word "petty".

[chomerics]

:laugh:You're kidding right? I know you're well researched and such.

Ever seen the campaigns of old like the 1884 election. I swiped this from a USA Today article:

or

1828 John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson

[/left]

True, I should have said in my lifetime, they were pretty bad before too.

[Hooper]

Right or left, we have nowhere to go but up from this guy.

[Crazyhorse1]

I say this about Clinton and almost all Presidents: Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I say this about Bush: Not just the biggest liar among Presidents, but perhaps one of the greatest pathological liars of all time. As far as I can tell, nothing he says increases its probability of being true. He also appears to be unable to distinquish between his lies and reality or have a self reflective inner life...nor is he capable of empathy.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

I say this about Clinton and almost all Presidents: Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I say this about Bush: Not just the biggest liar among Presidents, but perhaps one of the greatest pathological liars of all time. As far as I can tell, nothing he says increases its probability of being true. He also appears to be unable to distinquish between his lies and reality or have a self reflective inner life...nor is he capable of empathy.

I see. So you've spent some one on one "couch time" with the man? What primary evidence do you have of this? Do you understand that you are accusing Bush of being a sociopath?

:insane:

[Crazyhorse1]

I see. So you've spent some one on one "couch time" with the man? What primary evidence do you have of this? Do you understand that you are accusing Bush of being a sociopath?

:insane:

Yes, I am. As you know. I have also examined you and neatly found a poem in my collection that presents both my psychological position and yours and establishes the underlying dynamic between us. Unfortunately, your instinct to compete with me is continuing to dull for you what could be a unique experience.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Yes, I am. As you know. I have also examined you and neatly found a poem in my collection that presents both my psychological position and yours and establishes the underlying dynamic between us. Unfortunately, your instinct to compete with me is continuing to dull for you what could be a unique experience.

So you are making a clinical diagnosis without credentials, license, and facts. Very nice. :doh: You found someone else's silly poem that means nothing, and then claim it as your own like the falsifier that you are. Compete with you? You're delusional. If this was a gun and knife fight, you woud certainly be the (dull) knife. Unique experience, you say? Yeah... I've never argued with anyone as delusional, misguided, brainwashed, and mentally deficient as you are.

[Crazyhorse1]

So you are making a clinical diagnosis without credentials, license, and facts. Very nice. :doh: You found someone else's silly poem that means nothing, and then claim it as your own like the falsifier that you are. Compete with you? You're delusional. If this was a gun and knife fight, you woud certainly be the (dull) knife. Unique experience, you say? Yeah... I've never argued with anyone as delusional, misguided, brainwashed, and mentally deficient as you are.

By what knowledge do you say, I have no credentials to teach psychology. I do. I am a Freudian/ Jungian/critic with lifetime acheivement awards in criticism, playwrighting, and poetry.

I do not, in fact, have a license to practice medicine.

I have made an exhaustive study of George W. Bush and have published many articles about him. I have written a play called Abu Ghraib, which is a study of the psychological impact of torture on the torturers.

The poem is my own. It is not silly. It is the centerpiece of a work that has received a major grant in Virginia this year and will be performed May 19. Say the word and you shall have tickets.

I sent you the poem so you would take a look at your psychological positioning toward older men, but your hostility was such you couldn't do it. You have great ambivalence toward them...toward Bush...toward any. Older men are delusional, imposters, stupid, brainwashed, mentally deficient. They've let you down...like Bush himself maybe...let you slip. You've seen their weakness and you've needed them to be so strong...like Bush. Christ, its so confusing.