Join 3,517 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Bushism
December 30, 2007 8:50 PM   Subscribe

I'm a Railroad (YT) pure Bush gibberish, from the same folks that gave you "Top Ten Signs Your Country May Be Going Fascist", And FDR Rant. (More inside. NSFW for language & juvenility)
posted by growabrain (103 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

 
nice voice acting, but kind of meh.
posted by b1tr0t at 8:55 PM on December 30, 2007


I'd say not meh. I have no idea how hard it is to lip read, but everything looked like it sounded to me. And I don't giggle much, but I was a-gigglin'.
posted by not_on_display at 8:57 PM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


not gonna last i reckon, but i laughed pretty hard.
posted by facetious at 8:59 PM on December 30, 2007


So I'm walking back home from the local bar the other night and as I cross the road at a stop sign a car pulls up to it. "Watch out or you'll get run over" says some drunk frat leaning out of the window. I keep walking and ignore him; the car takes a righthand turn and follows me down the street getting as close as it can to the sidewalk. "He fag! Hey! Better look at me when I'm talking"

I keep looking straight ahead then something sloshes across my face as I'm hit from the side with a mostly spent can.

I just respond, no thinking just action; i turn on the passenger who suddenly no longer wants my attention, at all.

He takes the first blow like a deer in headlights, the next one has to chase him further into the car, he starts talking again but now it's a higher pitch. Voices inside the car alarmed and all at once they are leaving me behind very fast.
I pick up his ball cap, some kind of burnt sienna with a capital C, times new roman; I'm looking at it now I'm not sure what I'd like to do with it, not wear it, maybe throw it out.

Funny video.
posted by nola at 9:12 PM on December 30, 2007 [12 favorites]


I really liked the FDR one.
posted by nola at 9:18 PM on December 30, 2007


pure Bush gibberish

I propose a new term: Bushibberish.

Juvenility warning was a good call. Still, I laughed and laughed again at the Bush clip. "...and rest assured us white folks are gettin' rich makin' fools outta you." Shoulda been more lines like that.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:28 PM on December 30, 2007


I'm surprised by the positive responses. I thought it was pretty stupid, in conception and execution. At least the first video.
posted by delmoi at 9:28 PM on December 30, 2007


I got NO problem with political humor, after all I do have three liberal arts degrees from 'liberal' universities. However as one of those oddities who actually respect and adore Geo. W. Bush, I am compelled to say that this is stupid beyond the blind rage that many 'bandwagon' guppies ,trying to impress their close-minded, hysterical, anti-intellectual, emotional 'riot mentality' peers, that fuels such feeble attempts at, cough, 'humor'.
This is fail on a massive, cosmic, historic scale.
posted by dawson at 9:28 PM on December 30, 2007


Okay, then, I got something for you here you're bound to like: George Bush doesn't know what to say.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:33 PM on December 30, 2007 [4 favorites]


Gotta say, though, "respect and adore Geo. W. Bush" is one of the funniest things I've heard all week.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:34 PM on December 30, 2007 [17 favorites]


The FDR one made me laugh a bit just for how absurd it was, but the Bush clip didn't even make me smile. Having the intention of making fun of Bush is not enough to be funny, you should also have some good jokes in there.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:35 PM on December 30, 2007


naw flapjax, that one is even worse, this one approaches genuine humor, but yeah, I'm one of those few who respect and adore 43....for goddamn real.
posted by dawson at 9:39 PM on December 30, 2007


This cracked me up. Thank you so much.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:50 PM on December 30, 2007


See this was all fun and games till you guys had to start posting the real thing.
posted by nola at 9:54 PM on December 30, 2007


you...you respect and adore george w. bush?? this has to be some sort of elaborate put-on that i'm just a little too dense to pick up.
posted by bruce at 9:54 PM on December 30, 2007


wow, dawson. I really can't find a single redeeming quality in the man, or his work.

but be that as it may, I closed the YT window about 10 seconds in, given the infantile stupidity quotient that was building up.
posted by panamax at 9:56 PM on December 30, 2007


Obviously some of you don't enjoyed wonderfully stupid things like this, and things like the Jerky Boys.
posted by nola at 10:03 PM on December 30, 2007


The FDR clip made me laugh a lot. What's with all the apple juice references, though?
posted by maryh at 10:05 PM on December 30, 2007


They just love the apple juice.
posted by nola at 10:07 PM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Three liberal arts degrees does go some way to explaining "adore."
posted by maxwelton at 10:51 PM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


Ha they like Canadians!

.
posted by hortense at 11:11 PM on December 30, 2007


No, think about it Panamax. George W. Bush closed out the age of the superpowers with the calm efficiency of a sign that says, "Lost our Lease - Last Days - 90% Off". Clinton drug things on for another eight years and made the dollar excessively desirable. Once we're trading even up dollars for pesos think we'll have an immigrant problem?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:13 PM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


"Y'see, a thread on the Metafilter is not like a thread, on, uh, y'know, in a place where people knit. A thread on Metafilter is different, it's, uh, a discussion between people. And as your president, I have to have discussions with other people. That's why I can a discussing president, I have to discuss the things that are, uh, posted to on the line."
posted by moonbird at 11:19 PM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Anyone who claims they respect or adore George W Bush is either mentally ill, not very smart, or lying. No sane, intelligent person could respect or admire him unless they deliberately ignored the reality of his actions and the events during his presidency, because even by the standards of hardcore conservative Republicanism, he's not really up to much.

I'm trying to be very objective about determining if there are legitimate reasons to respect him, and failing. The idea that someone with average intelligence and normal emotional response could 'adore' him, however, is not credible.

Occam's Razor suggests dawson is simply not being truthful. A coherent analysis of his motives for posting his statements here is probably not possible. There are lots of loonies on the internet, however, so the issue is not important.

I very much enjoyed the dayjoborchestra video on the south tower anomalies part 3.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 11:23 PM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


This is fail on a massive, cosmic, historic scale.

What? It's just dubbed to sound silly. Get over yourself.
posted by ORthey at 11:27 PM on December 30, 2007


Too stupid for words. And someone needs to look up the meaning of the word 'fascist' in a dictionary.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:38 PM on December 30, 2007


adore
Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈdȯr\
Function:
transitive verb
Etymology:
Middle English adouren, from Anglo-French aurer, adourer, from Latin adorare, from ad- + orare to speak, pray — more at oration
Date: 14th century

1 : to worship or honor as a deity or as divine
2 : to regard with loving admiration and devotion
3 : to be very fond of

adore (LOVE) Show phonetics
verb [T not continuous]
to love someone very much, especially in an admiring or respectful way, or to like something very much.

So yeah, adore.
But not to hijack the thread. After all, I'm merely a lying loony, and quite possibly ignorant, pretentious and fey. (^-^)

posted by dawson at 12:41 AM on December 31, 2007


I'm trying to be very objective about determining if there are legitimate reasons to respect him, and failing. The idea that someone with average intelligence and normal emotional response could 'adore' him, however, is not credible.

By who's standards-yours. I see, you set the benchmark, you are all knowing and see everthing. We must see the wisdom in your reasoning, however it must not be reciprocated. I met people like you very often in my life. Your opinions are the Holy Grail and must not be questioned. Gonna let in on a little secret, your dislike for President Bush is clouding your judgement and making you an island onto yourself. Try opening your mind and see if a ray of light can penetrate the fog aound your being.
posted by brickman at 12:52 AM on December 31, 2007


I neither like or dislike the President as a person since there are too many filters between me and him to make an accurate assessment.

I do not judge him by his bio, other than to note nothing of particular interest or any redeeming qualities, and plenty to find distaste in, like his sketchy TANG service (or lack thereof), his ability to serially bankrupt several energy companies despite his Harvard MBA while landing on his feet due to his connections, his fake minority position in the Rangers that he parlayed to the figurehead governorship of one of our more wackier states.

If his last name were not Bush he would not be anywhere he is now, and the ironic thing is that the alleged "thoughtful conservatives" looking for Bush-Brand governance got sold a real bill of goods.

I judge the President by his effect on the world and my country's place in it, 2000-now.

Some people call this BDS. I call this . . . dunno, really. "Depressing", I guess.

Let me try to think of one positive thing this Administration can take credit for . . .

Spyplane incident near Hainan . . . not impressive.
Getting NCLB through the senate thanks to Teddy . . . bad
Tax cuts & the $300 pre-refund check . . . stupid
Suspending federal funding of stem cell research. . . meh
Non-response to briefing memo on "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" . . . not impressive
Deer in headlights reaction to 9/11, tepid reaction speech that night. . . not impressive
Going ahead with Rumsfeld RMA experiment in Afghanistan . . . mistake

OK, that was 2001 off the top of my head.

I wasn't paying attention to 2002 that much, fortunately.

2003 featured the President seeing his foreign diplomacy work as the Anti-Talleyrand, so he willingly had to lie the nation into launching its intervention into Iraq. Nobody in the right mind would have approved that experiment in nation-building in the middle of a civil war if we had known we'd be seeing 4000+ US KIA and over $500B in direct costs through this FY.


2007, the President has been a non-entity, other than vetoing some bills I guess.

As for national initiatives, what do we have?

Manned mission to Mars via the Moon. Meh, rather see robotic.
Freedom Car . . . more like a government boondoggle for existing hydrocarbon interests.
Medicare Part D . . . big giveaway to Big Pharma
Ownership Society 2003-2006 saw the President and his Administration completely fail to oversee the banking sector, which in all likelyhood will result in a financial unwinding an order of magnitude greater than the S&L and NLCB crises combined.

OK, those were the positive policy initiatives.

Then we have the torture green light, sweeping up hundreds of (now-known) innocent people into gulag detention centers like Guatanamo and Diego Garcia, running the deficit up from $5.8T to $9.1T with precious little capital spending to show for those deficits . . .

There's gotta be something positive attributable to this administration . . . help a brother out . . .
posted by panamax at 1:45 AM on December 31, 2007 [4 favorites]


Well, okay, but also:

adore:

1. To worship as God or a god.
2. To regard with deep, often rapturous love. See Synonyms at revere1.

I could understand if you used 'admire'. Well, not understand, exactly, but it would have been much less jarring to read than "adore." That word carries a heavy perfume of frankincense & myrrh at this time of year, and a cooing delight in any other season that just seems a little over the top when it's used in reference to anyone other than an infant or a panda.
(I'm suddenly imagining W curled up in a teacup on CuteOverload. What did Cormac McCarthy say? "Just remember that the things that you put into your head are there forever." I'm so fucked.)
posted by maryh at 1:48 AM on December 31, 2007


I suppose it is possible that one might sincerely admire George Walker Bush, but the qualities necessary to do so would certainly preclude me from wanting to interact with- or, say, swerve around- you.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:14 AM on December 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


And someone needs to look up the meaning of the word 'fascist' in a dictionary.

It can't happen here!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:28 AM on December 31, 2007 [4 favorites]


Super-duper interesting link, BP.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:08 AM on December 31, 2007


He means "adore" in the biblical sense.
posted by telstar at 3:08 AM on December 31, 2007


I once had a distant cousin who liked to mention his multiple bachelor's degrees. He still lived with his mother at 40 and had fairly evident trouble with his pyloric valve.

Word to the wise: whenever someone with similar credentials presents an unpublished novel to you, under no circumstances read it.
posted by melissa may at 3:12 AM on December 31, 2007 [5 favorites]


"Gonna let in on a little secret, your dislike for President Bush is clouding your judgement and making you an island onto yourself."

That's very strange, because everyone I know and every person I respect in RL thinks the same thing as I do about Bush. He is one of the most unpopular people on the planet, because of his actions. If I am an island unto myself, then I am rather overpopulated. Even in America, Bush's popularity is not very high. So really, I have to assume you're just talking out of your arse.

My dislike of George W Bush is based on his actions. Looking at it objectively, as I really am honestly attempting, I conclude my dislike of Bush is really rather appropriate. If he was just an ineffectual American President, he would be filed away with all the other ones I am mildly ambivalent about, I mean there are lots to choose from in terms of shitty American Presidents. After a while you just get to expect them to be shitty. Bush is a high achiever for me in that he has even managed to rehabilitate Nixon in the memory*. He's arguably a war criminal, apart from everything else, and if this was all he was that would still be enough to incite visceral dislike in any rational person. And, yes, rational, sane people do tend to agree on the standards of what makes a really bad political leader. If you need those standards spelled out for you, then the problem is not on my end.

"After all, I'm merely a lying loony, and quite possibly ignorant, pretentious and fey. (^-^)"

The analysis was mental illness, stupidity, or lies. If you were a loony and 'adored' George W. Bush based on irrational interpretation of reality, then you presumably would be genuine, so not lying. You could be dumb as well as a loony, that's quite possible. That you could be lying and dumb is less likely. Plain ignorance could explain it. I have no problem with you being pretentious and/or fey, whatever the latter means. Perhaps you are telling us something else in subtext, that you are hot for George W. Bush in a sexual way. Perhaps your statements are meant to be heavy satire, in which case my satire detectors are not working.

*I have a theory that this is why Hunter S. Thompson killed himself. He saw that Bush was so bad that he made Thompson's own most hated President, Nixon, look like a liberal democrat in comparison, and his will to live crumbled under the realization.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 3:14 AM on December 31, 2007 [6 favorites]


I find it incredibly difficult to believe, nigh 2008, there's a single person alive who's still talking about a "baseless" or "irrational" hatred of George W. Bush.
posted by psmealey at 3:41 AM on December 31, 2007 [3 favorites]


Bill Kristol is.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 3:56 AM on December 31, 2007 [2 favorites]


I am somewhat inebriated at the moment, I regret to admit because I've had a personal MeFi anti-PUI policy for years, but I'm A Railroad made me laugh. A lot. Inside. Behind the tears.

Also, my hatred of George Bush is entirely rational, but rationality is modern society's god-replacement, and equally overrated. I hate that dimwit dogfucker rationally, irrationally, emotionally, dispassionately, politically, peripatetically, periphrastically, geologically, neologically, and, you know, every which way but loose.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:06 AM on December 31, 2007 [7 favorites]


I have a theory that this is why Hunter S. Thompson killed himself. He saw that Bush was so bad that he made Thompson's own most hated President, Nixon, look like a liberal democrat in comparison, and his will to live crumbled under the realization.

This is the first thing I thought, too. But that would make Hunter a fucking weiner, and I don't want to believe that he was. I think he was old, and in pain, and just done. He'd always said he'd do it himself when it was time. There are reasons to lose hope, sure, but politics (I like to think) isn't a reason for somebody with smarts and, you know, endurance, to give up. And HST was no dummy, and by fuck he had endurance.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:13 AM on December 31, 2007 [2 favorites]


One of my co-workers has brought her young daughter to work. I keep hearing her shout, "MAMA?! MAMA?! MAMA?!" from down the hall. I'd like to tell this co-worker that it's inconsiderate and annoying that she brought her young, highly vocal daughter in today, but I can't as the rules of office decorum prevent it. Man, kids can be so annoying, can't they?

Oh, and that GWB is a buffoon more or less common knowledge at this point. DAWSON's given no viable evidence that his 'adoration' for GWB is anything but a troll.

DAWSON shouldn't have to justify himself here, true, but no one is going to take seriously any person who drops a bomb like "I adore president Bush". Pfft.
posted by Pecinpah at 6:14 AM on December 31, 2007


Who?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:35 AM on December 31, 2007


Adore someone who surreptitiously enlisted the aid of the telecommunications companies to violate the very constitution he was elected to guard and preserve? And then he lied about when that happened, suggesting that it was *after* 9/11, when in fact he began spying on us months before that. That is an impeachable offense. It is not unlike what Nixon did, which caused him to resign rather than face impeachment. If our Congress had any gonads at all, Bush would already have resigned, or he'd be facing impeachment right now. Or he would have been impeached or resigned years ago and we'd have someone competent in office at this point.

I'm sorry, but I cannot wrap my mind around how someone can adore a person who lies to them and spies on them. The closest analogy that comes to mind are the women who stay with husbands who regularly beat them.
posted by jamstigator at 6:58 AM on December 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Sending 3,900 people to fight and die for "weapons of mass destruction" that weren't there and then joking about it is pretty adorable.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:20 AM on December 31, 2007


Oh, wait, I meant contemptible.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:20 AM on December 31, 2007


melissa may
I once had a distant cousin who liked to mention his multiple bachelor's degrees.

Touche. I guess... the point wasn't about some silly 'anyone can get them' degrees. It was that I'm not only some gun-toting, rebel flag waving, tobacco chewing Southern white boy with a hard-on for John Birch, Ludwig von Mises and John Wayne. I actually spent close to 10 years in the thick of hotbeds of hatred and those who barely deign to acknowledge that they might be mistaken about some core beliefs.
That's all I meant, I survived the stupid there and so I prefaced what I said by noting that.
If I am wrong, I will find out one day I guess. I, for now, am happy to not 'be like everyone else' OMG, to not believe most of what I hear or read and to respect my president, who, I might add, seems pretty popular in my limited travels 'abroad'.
That's all I'll say, I don't get all hot under the collar about something as temporal as politics, especially on the inter tubes.
But neither am I going to sit by every time he's slandered and mocked and not stick my skinny neck out for something I'm proud of.
kirkaracha
3,900 died in 5 years? That was a good night in most wars. But of course the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is purely coincidence. Those stupid soldiers man, they died in vain.

OK...I'm outta this thread. Carry on. No minds will be changed here, only egos bruised.
posted by dawson at 7:28 AM on December 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yeah, right, fight 'em in Iraq or they'll follow us home and we'll have to fight 'em here, eh? Yeesh...

Oh, and this Southern white boy, (born and raised in Alabama, and as staunchly anti-Bush'n'cronies as they come) takes umbrage at your simplistic and elitist portrayal. I don't care if you have 500 goddamn degrees, boy, you jes' plain dumb.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:37 AM on December 31, 2007


if ye will note flapjax, i said I am not only...that is I am a red-necked southern Carolina boy, but I am dumb, of course, dumb as dirt. That's the only explanation, obviously.

note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site.
posted by dawson at 7:43 AM on December 31, 2007


the band dawson adores, to which he lost his virginity.
posted by bruce at 8:04 AM on December 31, 2007 [3 favorites]


Dawson: How would minds change? You haven't really debated anything. The only positive thing you actually mentioned that might be attributable to Bush (and it is very much debatable that it is) is that the United States hasn't been attacked since 9/11. Now, I suggest the onus is on you to prove that it is a result of, and not in spite of, Bush's policies.

If someone else had been elected, perhaps they would not only prevented a 2nd attack, but managed to not go to war as well. Or maybe they would have prevented the first attack. Or, on the off chance that Bush is 'preventing' an attack on the United States, that it is only a temporary solution that will cause far, far, far worse problems in the future. Like using a band aid when stitches are needed. Sure there's no blood now, but a vein was cut and and we're still bleeding.
posted by Green With You at 8:15 AM on December 31, 2007 [2 favorites]


Hey! He's got his own show for grapefruits! I wonder if they're hiring...

In other news. This statement was even funnier than the video:
But of course the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is purely coincidence. Those stupid soldiers man, they died in vain.

Yes. And the reason we weren't attacked before 9/11 is that the terrorists were pre-emptively afraid of our weapons of mass stupidity. 9/11 was a fluke that took place in a cosmic wormhole. Scientists are still puzzling it out so that they can go back in time and win the Vietnam War, which, judging by the casualities was a whopping success. Still though, we didn't get the trophy on that one and it's an embarrassment when the other countries drop by for lunch that we only have a "Participated in A Stupid, Ill-Advised War For No Good Reason" ribbon with a "see me after class" note taped to it on the refrigerator.

Speaking of seeing me after class, your straw man owes me a week of detention.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:49 AM on December 31, 2007 [4 favorites]


"However as one of those oddities who actually respect and adore Geo. W. Bush..."


So...


You're...retarded?
posted by stenseng at 9:09 AM on December 31, 2007 [2 favorites]


OK...I'm outta this thread. Carry on.

if ye will note flapjax, i said I am not only...

Liar. You're embarrassing. Please stay gone.
posted by tarheelcoxn at 9:12 AM on December 31, 2007


Some people call this BDS. I call this . . . dunno, really. "Depressing", I guess.

"Bush Derangement Syndrome" is just the neocon way to simultaneously dismiss everyone who thinks Bush sucks (that is to say, 70% of people) and attempt to turn it into a meme. Instead of trying to figure out why so many people hate his guts, they reject them all with a stupid catchphrase.

In capsule, it's exactly what's wrong with popular politics in the United States.
posted by JHarris at 9:19 AM on December 31, 2007 [2 favorites]


I do have three liberal arts degrees... This is fail...

Uhhh, I hope one of those degrees isn't English.

I honestly cannot understand anyone in this day and age who can claim to adore GWB, unless they are related to him. The solid 25% who love him are the ones that are so blindly partisan that they'd happily elect a mop to be president as long as it met with their political ends.

Frankly, I think a mop would have done a better job.
posted by MegoSteve at 9:32 AM on December 31, 2007


"I injured kids in the washroom this morning, with a hamburger and a large fire hat."
posted by nitsuj at 9:41 AM on December 31, 2007


If you need those standards spelled out for you, then the problem is not on my end.

Yes, please spell out for me the standards that make you opinion of President Bush more important, and that you must criticize another person comments about a man he or she respects. I'll be waiting with your Ten Commandments (so to speak) with great anticipation.
posted by brickman at 10:01 AM on December 31, 2007


This month in Tiger Beat: Dawson rates the heart-throbs!

George W. Bush: Adorable
Richard Nixon: Dashing
Ronald Reagan: Handsome
Pol Pot: Rakishly good-looking
Augusto Pinochet: Handsome
Reza Pahlevi: Cute

But, Jimmy Carter? "Very evil", apparently.
posted by psmealey at 10:12 AM on December 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Aw man, why did you people make the Dawson go away?

When someone makes a stunningly obtuse statement like "I admire and adore Bush" my first instinct is "oh my, how very interesting, please do tell me more..." I have the same response when someone tells me water fluoridation is causing mental retardation or that dismantling government will lead to a more just, equitable society.

Let him talk. He will either dig himself a grave much deeper than I ever could (with hilarious results) or he is an incredible genius in possession of an analytical wit that far surpasses anything else I have ever read; I suppose it would be worth a few minutes' time investment to hear him out. I mean, really, do we need to silence this MeFi newbie immediately by reciting for the 10 millionth time the litany of Bush's sins? There's no risk he's going to change any minds around here. And it's kind of endearing how unaware he is of others' opinions to say something like this here.

Next time someone like this turns up, what do people say we just let them run with it for a bit? I think it could be really fun.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:23 AM on December 31, 2007 [3 favorites]


Yeah, please don't drive away the crazy, it's fascinating to find out where this kind of nutty belief, like Bush isn't a dangerous sociopath, comes from.

And he already admitted where it comes from:

to not believe most of what I hear or read

If Dawson simply doesn't believe most of reality, it allows him to just make up whatever he wants to in his mind about Bush... I suppose it's like faith.

Thus, Bush is great, because Dawson sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la la la la I can't hear you!" whenever anyone points out what's actually going on in the world. It's a fascinating pathology.

Tell me more, Dawson, about this "adoration" you feel towards Bush... Please do. Is is sexual?
posted by MythMaker at 10:54 AM on December 31, 2007


I'm with Slarty on this one, I'd love to know what dawson found adoration worthy about the man, but he left quickly enough that now we'll never know.

I mean, what if it's all a misunderstanding, and it's his dog's name or something?

Because that is one of those intellectual exercises I would love to see someone try to attempt: George W Bush; great president, or greatest president. And please provide a detailed explanation for your answer.
posted by quin at 11:00 AM on December 31, 2007


that it is only a temporary solution that will cause far, far, far worse problems in the future. Like using a band aid when stitches are needed. Sure there's no blood now, but a vein was cut and and we're still bleeding.
posted by Green With You at 8:15 AM on December 31 [1 favorite +] [!]


Please tell me where you ordered your crystal ball. I would like to order right away. You see, I'm religious about buying lottery tickets.

May I suggest the past is a much better indicater to tell the future.
posted by brickman at 11:24 AM on December 31, 2007


Speaking of 9/11 stuff, isn't it really pretty funny that this is the issue that Giuliani wants to make his own personal one? "I was mayor of the city that terrorists attacked, and I didn't prevent it, and therefore you should put me in charge of security for the whole country." That's some fine logic there. Kinda seems something like, "I'm borderline retarded, so I hope you'll see that that makes me perfectly suitable to become president of MENSA." Using a reason he *shouldn't* be president as the very reason he should; that's so wickedly stupid, it's almost brilliant.
posted by jamstigator at 11:26 AM on December 31, 2007


brickman: may i suggest the past is a much better indicator to tell the future.

yessir. in the past, america has engineered regime changes in countries as disparate as iran, vietnam and chile, and it worked wonders every time, didn't it?
posted by bruce at 11:43 AM on December 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Odd that the good Dawson (god bless him) includes this quote on his profile:
That which is not, is not. "What-is-not" does not exist. Since anything that comes into being must arise out of what-is-not, objects, states of affairs and so on cannot come into being. Likewise, they cannot pass away, because in order to do so they would have to enter the realm of what-is-not. Since it does not exist, what-is-not cannot be the womb of generation, or the tomb of that which perishes. The no-longer and the not-yet are variants of what-is-not, and so the past and future do not exist either. Change, then, is impossible. Equally, multiplicity is unreal. The empty space necessary to separate one object from another would be another example of what-is-not. And since things cannot be anything to a greater or lesser degree—this would require what-is to be mixed with the diluting effect of what-is-not—the universe must be homogeneous. [Parmenides]
We just had this the other day.
posted by fcummins at 12:21 PM on December 31, 2007


Those stupid soldiers man, they died in vain.

You'd be a prick if you meant it, but your attempting to make it look as though that's what we think makes you an utter douche.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:23 PM on December 31, 2007


yessir. in the past, america has engineered regime changes in countries as disparate as iran, vietnam and chile, and it worked wonders every time, didn't it?
posted by bruce at 11:43 AM on December 31 [+] [!]


Punctuation is your friend. :) All kidding aside, contributors that make prophetic assumptions on non-existent data are in my opinion short sighted. If you are asking if U.S. has made mistakes in the past -answer is yes, if your asking me if U.S. has make mistakes in Iraq based on faulty intelligence-the answer is yes, if your asking if the U.S made mistakes when the WORLD TRADE CENTER was destroyed and over 3000 people were murdered-the answer is yes. Now, that this is established, and we know what our enemy is capable of, and the administration received tremendous criticism about their failed intelligence, wouldn't the administration be especially atuned of any perceive threat from a country, who in the past used chemical agents on their own people, and have in the past tried to develop a nuclear device.

Now, you may say (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) the intelligence is flawed and we should not have attacked Iraq, however I just noted flawed intelligence at the World Trade Center and 3000 men, women and children were murdered. Whether you like the stance of the administration or not, they can't make policy on what our enemies will do, they have to make policy on what they might do. And, although losing many soliders in a foreign land is heart breaking and I feel nothing but sadness for their families. My position is and always will be, they did their duty to their country and should always remembered as heroes to the country they loved.
posted by brickman at 12:34 PM on December 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Whether you like the stance of the administration or not, they can't make policy on what our enemies will do, they have to make policy on what they might do

The leadership's job is to make policy on what enemies will do, not make post hoc contingency policy planning based on what the enemy might have done, after we fucked up on assessing what they might have done, which they never ended up doing in the first place.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:43 PM on December 31, 2007


The leadership's job is to make policy on what enemies will do, not make post hoc contingency policy planning based on what the enemy might have done, after we fucked up on assessing what they might have done, which they never ended up doing in the first place.

You are wrong my friend, and if any current or ex- military personal are in cyberspace reading this discussion, please point out his\or her faulty reasoning. Because, at this juncture, he or she is not going to believe me.
posted by brickman at 12:50 PM on December 31, 2007


You are wrong my friend

The military are most certainly not running this show, because if they were, they would not allow such horrible, information-less decision-making. The basis for your argument comes from an untenable defense for a group of know-nothing nepotists who have possibly the worst track record of any administration in the history of the country. We're well past the point of giving benefit of the doubt to leadership, and pretty much past the point of impeachment for treason, given the results.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:10 PM on December 31, 2007


Oh I am here, just didn't want to be like Michael Jordon and basketball, or any number of boxers and boxing.
Amazing the vitriol one can elicit by stating ones opinion of a man.
I won't bother to answer each 'charge' individually, but I didn't comment in this thread in order to argue. I never claimed to have 'laid out my case' or anything of the sort. Actually I'm probably pretty boring but I am, after all, just another guy out of billions who happens to occupy this space in this time.
I have no beef with anyone that I am aware of.

I believe that Geo W. Bush, while far from perfect, has been the man for this time. I don't want him to be dictator. I believe he did better than anyone else that could have conceivably been in that position. Especially Albert Gore.
W has an ability, a gift, to see things in black and white. I see shades of grey. I would make a horrible leader. We are at war and we need a leader with resolve. I admire his courage and his refreshing refusal to do the easy things just to please the people polled who, like the Israelites in the wilderness, can't be pleased.
I believe he has followed his heart and conscience without wavering. I admire that. Respect his character. He's a fine family man. I'm not gay, yet (there is still hope) but yeah, I think he's a sexy man. I don't adore him physically however, that's why I put the definition up.
All of these statements are, obviously, personal opinions. If holding these opinions makes me an idiot, a fool, and/or someone you can't respect, well I'm sorry. But I'm not changing what I believe simply to avoid an electronic tar and feathering or be 'in' with cliques oh the internet.
I don't know what the big deal is, people must be bored today.
I've been around the interwebs for a long spell, so I know about how these things work. I'm not some newbie collage Republican with stars in my eyes.
I am not overly offended by web-harassment.
Most of you wouldn't say what yr saying to my face, it's the internet tough guy syndrome.
But hey, my email is in my profile, I am currently back in the states, near Annapolis, MD.
I welcome any real conversation that is constructive, although as I am simply stating my opinion I fail to see why I need to hang around this thread and defend myself.

Let's just put it this way.


I apologize for being such a tool, All. I apologize that you have to live on the same planet at the same moment in the history of this dimension as I do. I apologize for being such an ignorant ass.
I have lost all will to live now. As soon as I finish this gin and tonic I am going to smash the glass, select the largest shard, and jam that mother into my left jugular.
Happy new year, All.
posted by dawson at 1:22 PM on December 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


The military are most certainly not running this show, because if they were, they would not allow such horrible, information-less decision-making.

Source please?
posted by brickman at 1:28 PM on December 31, 2007


Source please?

Really? You can't open a newspaper to see how policy is being conducted or look up the Constitution for yourself?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:34 PM on December 31, 2007


I apologize for being such a tool, All. I apologize that you have to live on the same planet at the same moment in the history of this dimension as I do. I apologize for being such an ignorant ass.
I have lost all will to live now. As soon as I finish this gin and tonic I am going to smash the glass, select the largest shard, and jam that mother into my left jugular.
Happy new year, All.
posted by dawson


This should be the new neo-con mantra.
This could be trend setting. This could be bigger than Dancing Baby and Star Wars Kid put together!
posted by Balisong at 1:46 PM on December 31, 2007


The people I know in real life who adore bush (my father, some recent co-workers) adore him because they have bought into a certain set of soundbytes. They believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that capturing Osama Bin Laden is no longer important- that it was Hussein, and that an attack on Iraq was the best possible response to 9/11. That Bush's tax cuts are better for the little guy, that the problems with the economy and the dollar were because of the eight years of the Clinton administration, that Bush's excellent and tough foreign policies are what have kept us safe from another large-scale terrorist attack, that torture saves American lives and that the ticking-time-bomb scenario is a common occurrence, that the prisoners in Abu-Ghraib deserved what they got after 9/11. That Bush is for "small government," that there is nothing wrong with warrantless wiretapping and opening the mail of U.S. citizens if you haven't done anything wrong and aren't a terrorist, that we needn't worry about issues of habeas corpus as long as we remain upstanding American citizens. That the poverty-stricken people in New Orleans should have been saving their money and should have been better prepared for a natural disaster (and are we seriously saying a hurricane was Bush's fault?), that Valerie Plame wasn't covert and anyway she deserved what she got, and who does she think she is getting cushy jobs for her house-husband? That the Walter Reed veterans were just a few bad apples who should learn to shut their mouths and serve their country like men. That the U.S. attorneys were fired because they refused to investigate corrupted Democratic officials. That we're winning the war in Iraq and that we won the war in Afghanistan, but the Elite Media refuses to show all the good things that are happening over there, and are we seriously saying that the I.E.D's are Bush's fault? Those are the terrorists, and just proves that we were right to invade Iraq, and we should invade Iran too while we're at it, because the Middle East needs to be shown what's what, and the world would be a better place if it were a parking lot. That global warming is a hippie conspiracy theory perpetrated by elite academics and thank god we have Bush to protect us from those sorts of people and if not for him they would probably pass a law saying we all have to eat tofu from now on. And speaking of the elite academics, be thankful we have a president who is a decent enough to put an end to stem-cell research on embryos- if not for Bush, they would probably have baby farms like in the Matrix. And anyway, thanks to Bush, they found an even better alternative to stem cell research. Funny that one of the biggest scientific advances of the last ten years was a direct result of the policies of this so-called "anti-science" president. And while we're on the subject of God and science, be thankful for a president who understands that we need to teach both sides of the scientific debate about the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. That the bureaucratic maneuvering of the Bush administration-- the signing statements, Cheney saying that he is neither a member of the executive branch nor the legislative branch, the disappearing of official emails-- is really just a case of some decent, regular guys sticking it to the man ("the man" in this case is "Big Government" which is mostly Democrats but which we will admit is sometimes Republicans, (see? We're being non-partisan and totally fair about this)) and good on them for it- somebody needs to show Big Government what it's all about, by God. That's Bush: sticking it to the man, standing up for the little guy. And the little guy is me. And if I have to choose between some Ivy-League educated dimwit and a regular guy, a rancher from Texas, I'm going to choose the rancher.

Those are some of the arguments I have heard often these past seven years from people I know and otherwise think of as sensible. My dad, for example, is an extremely smart guy-- smarter than I am-- who seems to have a lot of compassion for the world. He's a great guy. Except if you bring up politics, and then it's like a Jekyll and Hyde thing.
posted by jiiota at 1:47 PM on December 31, 2007 [8 favorites]


happy new year, dawson.

I wasn't attacking you, I just wanted to know where you were coming from with the adoration bit.

The proof is in the pudding, and while I fail to see the great works of his war leadership, such things take years and years to fully play out. But even if he was the second coming of . . . (thinking) . . . Lincoln? ah, T. Roosevelt! . . . the utter ineptness of his domestic policy priorities weigh much more on my mind . . . this Global War on Terror thing is a generational-scale struggle and this is not even the Churchillian "end of the beginning" stage yet.

btw, where did you find these great Bushists overseas? From what I gather the likeliest population would be conservative Netherlanders and conservative Israelis. Couldn't be Iraqis, since polling shows damn near 100% of the country wanted us out their affairs last year.

and somehow I knew The Clenis, Gore, or Kerry would enter into your mindset
posted by panamax at 1:50 PM on December 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Thanks for clarifying your position dawson, I disagree with you. A lot. But I respect your efforts to make your feelings more understandable to us.

I think one of the reasons you are going to get a lot of hostility is this:

We are at war and we need a leader with resolve.

We are at war because of this leader. The war was not started on 9/11, we counter-attacked and had the blessing of the world to do so. The war was started two years later, based on a weak case that, looking at the current evidence, the administration knew was not accurate, and against a country that was not in any way involved with the New York attacks.

You say that you like our president because he sees issues in black and white, I say that this is exactly the failing about him that I dislike the most, and the one that I think has most damaged our countries standing in the world community.

I guess we will have to disagree on this point.
posted by quin at 1:52 PM on December 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Really? You can't open a newspaper

You mean like the CBS's Dan Rather, that falsely accused President Bush of impropriety with National Guard service. Or, the New York Post admitting bias in their reporting on the war on Iraq and the administration. Hardly a bastion of conservative thinking in my opinion, and speaking of opinions, using the word f%&*king in your post adds little to your point, other than your limited vocabulary (if that was your intent - I m sorry).
posted by brickman at 1:54 PM on December 31, 2007


You mean like the CBS's Dan Rather...

No, I mean like the link I pointed to, which cites the Constitution of the United States regarding the definition of the Commander-in-Chief responsibilities of its acting President. This is a document which you could have looked up yourself but chose not to.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:57 PM on December 31, 2007


W has an ability, a gift, to see things in black and white. I see shades of grey. I would make a horrible leader. We are at war and we need a leader with resolve. I admire his courage and his refreshing refusal to do the easy things just to please the people polled who, like the Israelites in the wilderness, can't be pleased.

I guess this is really the crux of the matter, as quin has also identified. The world is *so blindingly obviously* complex with shades of grey everywhere that you, yourself admit to seeing it. History is so full of examples of people who saw things in black and white and got millions of people killed because of it. Why on earth could someone who seems intelligent want to put their faith in a man who looks at the same world as you do and draws entirely different conclusions that you?
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:14 PM on December 31, 2007


that --> than
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:15 PM on December 31, 2007


Why on earth could someone --> "Why on earth would someone". Clearly I do not have enough liberal arts degrees.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:16 PM on December 31, 2007


Thanks for the responses, again, it's more a personal thing. jioota made some valid points re those of us who like W. I don't wish to elaborate. In a very real sense politics are silly to me, if you get too involved and are really passionate you stand a chance to end up, if not like Sara Jane Moore, at best a loon like many Ron Paul 'supporters' who spam the internet and go in debt with 'money bombs'. (NB: this is not an attack on Dr. Paul, who seems a reasonable man, but on a certain subculture who have hijacked this particular every four year run of his.
I would argue, if I were interested in arguing, that, for example, quin's assertion "We are at war because of this leader." But why would I go searching for web links, of which there are many, to buttress my belief that greater war has been avoided, and on are own soil? Why we don't have bombing like Israel suffers astounds me, but I don't think it's an accident.
I am fine with disagreement as long as there is not discord. I know my 'views' are not popular. I have friends in music and academia with whom you can't even joke about W. They hate him with such intensity that it's almost frightening. But we still drink together. I don't question their sanity, intelligence or motives, and they don't mine. Some public figures are polarizing and W is very mush so.
panamax, I have mostly lived in Eastern Europe, Ukraine and China the past 4 years, while I realize that a lot of the goodwill towards Bush I've encountered is in deference to me being a guest, I experienced the opposite in such countries of little import such as the Netherlands and Spain. At any rate my experiences are highly subjective 'hearsay' and prove nothing.
BTW, I guess it appears that I'm a Republican...little could be further from the facts.

have fun with this one Slarty as I'm sure it's filled with spelling/grammatical errors. I never cared much for standard English and studied it as little as possible. It's been my experience that most grammar Maoists don't really have a grasp on the mechanics of English anyway :-)
posted by dawson at 2:24 PM on December 31, 2007


Sorry Slarty! I thought you were correcting my mistakes and snarking, I apologize. You make a good point about my willingness to defer life and death decisions to a man who sees the world in a different way than I do. I'll ponder it and maybe have an answer one day soon.
As for now, I'd kinda like to start the New Year libations:)...
posted by dawson at 2:28 PM on December 31, 2007


And how about that fuckin' FDR? Holy shit, what a gimp bombast! I adore him. What videos? You mean there are links that someone FPP'd?

(Amazing how a funny little few youtuberies can spawn a vitriolic 75+ comment FPP.)

...yes, they ARE funny videos.

...I think "apple juice" must be an easy phrase to sync up to the lips.

I adore MetaFilter

posted by not_on_display at 2:29 PM on December 31, 2007


obviously I started the libations long ago. what i wrote is missing whole sentences. Sheesh.
posted by dawson at 2:30 PM on December 31, 2007


Slarty, well if I were a Trotskyist or other creative-destruction type I too would simply adore Bush. "4 More Years!" indeed.

dawson is in fact repeating the "Steely-Eyed Rocket-Man" worldview:

The American president has, meanwhile, demonstrated to the entire world that he is neither a bombastic naïf nor a reckless cowboy but, in fact, another kind of American stereotype: the steely-eyed rocket man. Don’t tread on him. It is good for the world that it see him as he is. As for leadership style, remember Jimmy Carter micromanaging the failed hostage rescue mission in 1980? This president was told Wednesday night we may have to move early to take advantage of potentially key targets that had presented themselves. Bush said, “Let’s go.” It takes guts and judgment to trust others who know how to do their jobs.
The American victory will mean that the United States has removed a great and serious threat to the innocent people of the world. An evil man who was gathering to himself weapons of mass destruction was, is, a danger to the world. And so, with the successful prosecution of the war, the world will be safer.


Part of the issue I see is, for lack of a better term, the false "Manification" of history. Hitler himself didn't put all those people in the death camps. We've now seen the issues with Iraq had deeper seatings than just the Saddam & Sons.

Interestingly, Noonan revisited her caricature of Bush in this piece:

In arguing for the right path as he sees it, the president more and more claims for himself virtues that the other side, by inference, lacks. He is "idealistic"; those who oppose him are, apparently, lacking in ideals. He makes his decisions "based on principle," unlike his critics, who are ever watchful of the polls. He is steadfast, brave, he believes "freedom isn't just for Americans" but has "universal . . . applications," unlike those selfish, isolationist types who oppose him.
...
I suspect people pick up with Mr. Bush the sense that part of his drama, part of the story of his presidency, is that he gets to be the romantic about history, and the American people get to be the realists. Of the two, the latter is not the more enjoyable role.

posted by panamax at 2:38 PM on December 31, 2007


After all, I'm merely a lying loony, and quite possibly ignorant, pretentious and fey. (^-^)
posted by dawson at 12:41 AM on December 31

Dude you can love GWB all you want but that shit in the bold is so fucking stupid I think you should kill yourself with all possible speed.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:52 PM on December 31, 2007 [3 favorites]


I'm not gay, yet (there is still hope) but yeah, I think he's a sexy man.

I'm not dead, yet (there is still time) but yeah, my zombie corpse just threw up in its mouth a little.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:03 PM on December 31, 2007


no grapefruitmoon, be happy baby!
posted by dawson at 8:59 PM on December 31, 2007


I always thought that the caricature of Bush-lovers as being little more than bundles of talking points and crazy was unfair, but now...
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:13 PM on December 31, 2007


No, I mean like the link I pointed to, which cites the Constitution of the United States regarding the definition of the Commander-in-Chief responsibilities of its acting President. This is a document which you could have looked up yourself but chose not to.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:57 PM on December 31 [+] [!]


Oh I'm sorry, though you referenced newspapers and the Constitution. Well you already know what think of the most liberal paper in America, so I'll tackle the Constitution this time around.

Of course you are right. President of the U.S. is the Commander-In-Chief and is the buck stops here person for administration policy on his watch. However, in matters of national security the president must rely on intelligence organizations, (CIA, NSA, etc.) with more expertise to filter and digest information and makes recommendations to the boss. Some times that information may be wrong, or analyzed improperly, thus faulty policy may be forthcoming.

If, the information is incorrect and flawed policies are implemented, there is usually hell to pay from the opposition party, and much debate and soap box oratory, will more than likely follow. And the Congress will make the American people promises to correct the mistakes of the administration if they are elected.

So what has happen since the change in Congress to a Democratic majority. Approval for funding the Iraq war 3 times. No acknowledge fault from the Democrats, that they authorized President to enter the war with same intelligence available to the administration.

Therefore, I recommend you lay blame to the whole circle and not just the epicenter. If unable to see this reason, I suggest I'm probably wasting my time trying to change your mind and will not retort any further. Thank you for the discussion, I enjoyed talking to you.

Sorry I didn't post earlier but was detained with making ready for New Year.

Wishing a Happy New Year to all.
posted by brickman at 12:05 AM on January 1, 2008


you already know what think of the most liberal paper in America

...

I presume you're still talking about the New York Post, which you referred to before as having "biased" reporting on Iraq.

Well, I concur, there, seeing as the Post is a Murdoch paper that's been consistently very strongly biased in favour of the Bush administration. That bias is exemplified by one rather striking December 2006 front page.

So I'm guessing you actually meant to say the New York Times or the New Yorker; both of those are frequently subjected to US right-wing hatred for their horribly leftist viewpoint. Why, the New Yorker even specifically suggested that its readers vote for a colourless pro-business Democrat rather than go for another four years of Bush! The very idea!

Welcome, once again, to the Bizarro World of US political classifications, where the belief that maybe something should be done about people starving on the streets makes you Che Guevara.

If nothing else, this contraction of the spectrum of political descriptions to cover what in almost any other country would all be slightly different shades of conservatism leaves you with no description for publications like, say, The Socialist Workers Party newspaper "The Militant" (celebrating eighty years of publication of the USA this year!).

Well, unless you decide to call them "ultra hyper super mega giga frajalistic liberal", or something.
posted by dansdata at 7:09 AM on January 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


(Publication in the USA, not publication of the USA.)
posted by dansdata at 7:11 AM on January 1, 2008


Stand corrected-Times is the paper I was referring. Thanks for the input on correct paper and the English lesson.
posted by brickman at 10:10 AM on January 1, 2008


Hillary Signals Free Pass for Bush
posted by homunculus at 2:17 PM on January 1, 2008


Intelligent Design is not a theory. Theories are testable. What's the test for intelligent design? There is none. Calling something a theory does not make it so. Or at least no more so than, say, a 'theory' that pink unicorns farted us all out, complete and whole. No test for that either. If you can't test it, you shouldn't teach it, at least not in any science class. I don't think spending valuable science class time teaching people religion (cloaked in another phrase or not) is good for this country, for the students themselves, or for scientific inquiry. And doing so would certainly not be something our founding fathers would have condoned.

This is a tactic the religious right uses: to call Intelligent Design a theory, and then hint that two theories are equal in weight. In other words, start with a lie (that ID is a theory at all, despite lacking the primary requirement of a theory), then once you convince people of that lie, move on and convince people that all theories carry equal weight, which is yet another lie. In fact, the ID movement got busted in Kansas when documents showed that they'd blatantly and willfully tried to inject religion into schools, ostensibly for 'the greater good of all'. I guess, for the ID folks, the ends justify the means; it's okay to corrupt science with religion and it's okay to lie to people and manipulate them, as long as their souls are ultimately saved.
posted by jamstigator at 2:31 AM on January 2, 2008


The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. Source-Wikipedia.

On intelligent design we are in agreement. What it has to do with making policy decisions based on intelligent (hard data and not a theroy based on a supreme being) is beyond me.

However, the only similarity I can see between the two, is having analyist(s), that see's what they want to, (faith if you will) or a preconcieved end result based on ideological convictions.

Other than that, I would hazard to guess, the amount of personal with their heads on the chopping block, would probably eqaul the French Revolution. And would be justified in my humble opinion.

If your suggesting, this be the case for the incorrect assessment of data to the administration in regards to Iraq war, I'm afraid some evidence must be accumilated, and referenced to the powers that be to the oversight committee of the U.S. Congress. If this evidence is in your possession, I feel it is your patriotic duty to forward the documents to the committe straight away.
posted by brickman at 2:12 PM on January 2, 2008


brickman, I think jamstigator was refuting the bit about "intelligent design" in my collection of right-wing talking points. I was listing some of the reasons that some of the people I know personally have given for "adoring Bush." Maybe it wasn't clear, but those aren't my beliefs. They're talking points I have heard from people I know who are kind and intelligent in their normal lives but who turn crazy when it comes to politics.

I think we're just three people in a lonely thread that has derailed so thoroughly that we no longer know what the heck we're talking about.
posted by jiiota at 3:00 PM on January 2, 2008


jiiota, isn't that what Humphrey Bogart said to Lauren Bacall right around the end of Casablanca?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:35 AM on January 3, 2008


flapjax, that made me laugh but I think you're thinking of Ingrid Bergman.
posted by The Loch Ness Monster at 9:22 AM on January 3, 2008


Of course you're right. It was Bergman, not Bacall. Thanks for that, TLNM!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:36 PM on January 3, 2008


"A Charge to Keep"
posted by homunculus at 12:32 PM on January 26, 2008


« Older How to learn to love exercise....  |  Not all portrait photography s... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments