LORD HAVE MERCY.
Once again-- He IS comparing GWB to STALIN. Both have been TIMES MAN OF THE YEAR MORE THAN ONCE.
That is the only comparison the OP makes. But both Bush-lovers and Bush-haters have jerked their knees because the saw GWB and STALIN in the same sentence.
duffer, gobear and imapunha need to re-read for comprehension.
Geez, it’s a joke. Like you never told Clinton jokes?
Here’s another one: What’s the difference between Orange County, CA and a bucket of yoghurt?
Yoghurt has an active culture.
Now are you going to say that’s unfair because a million people live in Orange County?
EEEEEE-ooooooo-EEEEEEE-EEEEEEEE!
This is a joke.
It is only a joke.
Had this been an actual commentary, the signal you have just heard would have been followed by a rant and you would have been directed to tune to your Politcal Commentary Station.
This concludes this joke.
Really? How do you figure that? Let’s look at the numbers:
Year Candidate Elect. Pop.
Votes Votes
-------------------------------
1992 Clinton 370 44.9 M
Bush 168 39.1 M
Perot 0 19.7 M
1996 Clinton 379 47.4 M
Dole 159 39.2 M
Perot 0 8.1 M
2000 Bush 271 50.5 M
Gore 266 51.0 M
Nader 0 2.9 M
2004 Bush 286 59.7 M
Kerry 252 56.2 M
On both electoral and popular votes, Clinton has defeated his opponents by larger margins than Bush has in this election.
Um, this was already covered. Unless you have something new to add, looks like you’re the joke. :rolleyes:
When come back, be original.
What? I’m not allowed to reply to you?
Thank you Biggirl, I wanted to say the same thing. Cajun Man is right that the OP was a political potshot, but I think anyone who read it calmly would see that it does not compare the two on any but the superficial level of how many times they’ve won Man of the Year.
I can totally see how someone might think that the OP’s view is that GWB is like Stalin, there has bit quite a bit of vituperation where GWB is involved, but I think the fact that the OP makes the comparison based on their Time MotY count and that he calls it a joke indicates that he doesn’t seriously think they are the same.
Have you never heard a joke that rests on a ridiculous comparison? It’s not that uncommon. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard much worse jokes about Democrats. I seem to remember some really tasteless jokes about Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example.
If anything, I would think that the OP is making fun of the people who compare Bush to various psychopathic leaders of the past.
What is the difference between anti-Bush fetishists and a pack of free-range retards?
The fetishists are not the more Republican of the two.
<snort> Too easy! 
Of course you’re allowed to. You know better.
What? I’m not allowed to throw a little crap back at you? C’mon Johhny, your skin is a little thicker than that.
Why is there a joke thread in the Pit?
Do you make a habit of only reading thread titles? You could honestly say that both Picasso and Hitler had something in common; they were painters. That doesn’t mean they are equivalent in all other or any other ways and the OP made no attempt to make any other comparison.
Well, ok. If you want to look at some numbers, let’s look up a few.
Now I must warn you, the following may be disturbing as they’re based on popular vote in the last 24 years.
Wikipedia wants to be funny and not give popular vote totals for '00 and '04, so I’ll just trust the last 20 years of history to get it through to you.
Check the popular vote total for for the Republicans, and for Billy. Bush and Reagan are the only ones there getting a majority. Yet when Clinton was elected, he talked of a mandate.
Little wonder so many middle-Americans can’t take the DNC seriously.
Well, you and Hitler both inhaled oxygen. How far do you want to stretch this shit out?
Jesus, guys… It’s a joke. Get over it.
Personally, I liked the Vietnam/Iraq riddle. Also funny.
Nice weaseling, moron. But the fact is, you said:
You lied. You got called on it. And now you’re trying to dredge up irrelevant 20-year-old figures to try and deflect attention from that fact.
mhendo beat me to it. Seriously, duffer, you’d do your credibility a favor if you’d admit you were wrong.
Add the GWI/Dole votes to the Perot votes, and tell me the difference then.
Your assumption that all those Perot votes would have gone to the Republican candidate betrays your ignorance of the American political system.
Translation: “Oh yeah? Well, if you change the facts, THEN I’m right!”
How in the fuck did I lie about GWB getting a majority of the vote? Show me where Clinton got at least 50% or just admit you read the post wrong and want to try to hit me based on my screen-name.
I gave you numbers, find the rest if you’re that damn upset about it. And when you find the numbers, show me where I’m wrong.