If we MUST have a leader bent on world domination ...

Exactly. Now if someone would be so kind as to point me in the direction of an Amererican Ultra-Nazi with a well-developed set of cajones, I should very much like to assist him in his climb to power. Don’t get me wrong, I dig peace, harmony and socialized medicine as much as the next excellent soul, but we’re in a position now where we’ve got a huge shit sandwich on our collective Franklin Mint-Issued Commemorative Freedom Plate, and the only way to get to dessert is for all of us to take our bite. There is no way the US is going to be forgiven by the folks who hate us, and the friends we’ve ass-fucked into playing ball with us, so really the only solution is to play this game to the end–and to play it quickly, deftly and with all the viciousness we’ve heretofore masked with faux diplomacy. Gotta make it a red/white/blue world and so forth. Or else just fire all the assholes in DC, burn our founding documents and maybe split the real estate between Canada & Mexico so one of them can have a decent shot at building their own set of wax wings.

Since we’re talking about brutal dictatorship here, I guess it would be appropriate to consider women for the job as well–that’d add a whole new level of ‘mean’ to an already iron-fisted regime. A real woman of power might even refer to it as a cuntatorship and just dare anyone to snicker about it–I would LOVE that woman!

I for one would welcome our new…ok, I’ve never been too good at those. Can someone help me out there?

Wow, this is really surprising. A thread critical of Mt. Bush, on a board known for its studious neutrality. The man must be really awful if all these scrupulously fair-minded neutral fence-sitters are mobilized against him.


It’s another example of those on the left, feeling ever-more marginalized, left out of any real power, not having a controlling voice in the White House, the House, or the Senate, reduced to carping endlessly and fruitlessly.

Man, that’s a tough choice. A or B? A or B?

I am dumbfounded to see that fucking idots like kanicbird are members on the SDMB!

I’m surprised your not for the spirit of the OP. I guess it’s tough to read with all that wool over your eyes.

There were leftists in this thread who disagreed with the OP.

How about “C”: The looney liberal left, a small but amazingly lound and shrill minority of the SDMB, starts Yet Another “We Hate Bush” thread and proceeds to display their inability to think while under the influence of their irrational hatred for the president in a circle jerk that results in more noxious emissions then a four hour bukake video.

I don’t get it. If I disagree with the policies of the President and his administration. If I think them heavy-handed and unwise. If I think people involved in the thread about said decisions and stances are absolutely insane because they refuse to admit that they were hosed by the president, even though his own independent commission refutes what said poster is blathering on about…how am I the problem? Why must I be lumped into the looney left?

Or is that just your way of branding the dissenters in our society?


How about D?

You’re an ignorant moron oblivious to the world around you.

We may both be extremes, but we’re not destroying this country. Look around, we’re on the way out, and it’s because of ignorant lockstepping fools like you. You guys put your party above the country, and we’re forced to live with the consequences of your small minded thinking…

I’m a socialist who has never voted for a Republican.

Pardon me, I must resume goose-stepping with all the other Bush supporters.

I see another learned member of the Right has seen fit to join us. Pray bless us with your wisdom. You can start by trying to explain and/or refute any of my claims, which were lifted out of various newspapers, various fliflops on the reason for the wars (from Bush’s own mouth), and government issued reports. :dubious: You can also spell out for me (I am a slow learner) how agression, arrest without charges and torture will further the cause of freedom. :dubious: After all that, explain please sir, why it is that Bush can’t seem to ever expain anything he does in a logical rational manner. He can’t even explain his latest crusade to default on various and sundry debts and gut social security (his “plan” will, according to R. Santorum. one of your favorite people, will cost trillions of dollars that they already say they don’t have). Neither can anyone else, when called before the House to do so. :dubious:
Finally, please explain to ME, a former member of a formerly proud military organization (Army) why “we” should follow a “war leader” who ran like his ass was on fire when he had a chance to go grab some “glory” of his own (draft dodging AWOL coward). I have more respect for those who did run to Canada. At least they didn’t hide behind Daddy Bush’s connections and influence.

That may be a long list, but I imagine with your legendary brilliance, it will be child’s play. We’re hanging on your every word, in near rapturous joy and anticipation. :wally

While I readily admit to being a rabid Bush-hater…and OK, a loony as well, I would just like to point out that my distaste for the little imp stems not from his being a lying, snivelling twit as much as his unwillingness to display the slightest shred of honesty about his intentions. I expect him to abuse me, he’s a national leader. But as far as I’m concerned he occupies that narrow band in the left-right spectrum which is reserved for those who espouse self-serving dictatorial styles (a viable position, IMHO, for anyone possessed of ambition), but who lack the intestinal fortitude and wit to make the most out of the office of the president. I’m simply bitching about his empty sack–he wants to rule the world and tell it what to do, but he simply won’t put his money where his mouth is in order to motivate his subjects to his will. He’s an ineffective leader, especially for the agenda he’s advancing, and he’s an embarassment because of it.

That he’s treading on basic American principles and restricting liberty at every turn is annoying, but it’s a style of leadership that we deserve for electing him so I really don’t have the ground to take issue with it. But I’ll bitch long & loud about his being weak, and making his constituency appear weak by association, because WEAK is how Japan perceived us when they figured they could get away with bitch-slapping us in Hawaii, and WEAK and sparsely allied is how our current enemies view us. 9/11 may or may not have been analogous to Pearl Harbor, but it certainly looks like a prelude to a fight that will cost untold riches and lives all around the globe. Our current leadership is bankrupt of diplomacy & credibility. If it insists on remaining in power, the least it can do is neutralize the threats it’s creating.

And fuck you (this being the Pit and all).

How about “D” or “E”: People who paid attention to all the speeches and caught the gross inconsistencies buried under the sloganeering, people who know how to read, and so were able to compare many newspaper articles from both the liberal and conservative sides (and put two and two together), and actually bothered to read the government reports (CIA report on WMD anyone? Words from Supreme Court justices on the “detainment” of people with no charges being filed anyone? 9/11 report anyone?). How about the snippet about OBL himself being unimportant “marginalized” now, when all the shit started as a “Tombstone” style oath to get him.

And yet, this thread really wasn’t about any of those things.

It started with a facetious rant by Inigo Montoya about all the threats we’re making. Then, World Eater chimed in and stated that the people in NY and DC were going to be paying for those threats. I refuted that claim by pointing out that, despite having invaded Afghanistan and Iraq some time ago, we hadn’t had any more attacks on US soil.

Note that I didn’t make any claims about Iraq being a threat to us, or having WMD’s, or anything else. I was directly responding to a claim by World Eater. Right after that is when the Loony Liberal Mutual Masturbation Party kicked into gear. LouisB almost immediately took my refutation to World Eater’s claim out of context, and insinuated that I was some kind of heartless bastard who didn’t care about the dead Afghani or Iraqi citizens. For whatever reason, he couldn’t be bothered to put what I said in context (despite my liberal use of the QUOTE tag), and instead started ejaculating the standard “We’re a bunch of murderers who invaded a country for no reason” glurge.

Meanwhile, World Eater continued to make unjustifiable claims about the effect the war would have, and then made a horrifically stupid statement about how the residents of NY and DC would be “cashing the check” of the Bush supporters outside that region.

Then, kanicbird jumps in and responds to some equally naive crap about Iraq having attacked us first, even though they probably had nothing to do with it. Then the pile-on continued, and we get SteveG1 talking about “Darth Cheney,” GaWd calling kanicbird a dumbfuck (not so bad, because he did say something dumb) and then following that up with an overgeneralization about “people like him”, SteveG1 saying the President has no balls, even though he’s probably one of the strongest leaders we’ve had in a long time, and then another round of tinfoil hattery from all around.

And what started this all? LouisB’s almost comical inability to take what I said in context. Even though I don’t support Bush, y’all assumed I did, and assumed I bought the rest of his platform hook, line, and sinker merely because didn’t agree with the OP. In other words, I was immediately cast as a member of “the other side” and a host of assumptions made about my beliefs merely because I disagreed with some of World Eater’s assertions.

And that’s what makes you looney. You’re so blinded by your hatred of the other side that you fail to see the irony in classifying someone as a “partisan hack” based solely on his apparent disagreement with one of your own, and rather then actually dicuss the issue you just spew the same tired crap in a dishonest and inflamatory manner (all the while accusing the other side of being dishonest and inflamatory, of course).

You didn’t refute shit my son. There were 10 years between the attacks on the towers, Iraq is what 2 years? It’s called cause and effect, and because of it I believe our meddling in Iraq will come and bite us in the ass down the road. YMMV, but our track record ain’t too hot.

Horrifically stupid statement? What are you smoking?

NY and Washington, are the highest profile targets in the country, would you agree? On our current path we’re pissing a lot of people off, possibly increasing the risk of an attack. In the event of an attack, what are the two most likely targets again? The people most concerned about being attacked, live outside of these places, which seems a bit crazy to me why they would be worried.

Crazy thinking eh?

I myself have been guilty of assuming anyone that disagrees on a point disagrees on all points, it’s something I need to work on. Wouldn’t hurt if other people tried too.

Well, the thread did seem to start by talking about Bush balls. Sounds like a candy or something. I chimed in calling him a liar (an incompetent one at that) and a coward. I took the side swipe at Cheney, to illustrate my point that the liar in chief surrounds himself with other liars. And also just because I could. A man with any true strength (or balls) would have the guts to tell the truth at least once in a while. He would have the guts to admit being wrong at least once in a while. He would stand on facts and principal instead of lies and slogans and evasions based on phony semantics. He would be willing to take the heat instead of blaming others. Only a very weak man is always right (even when he’s wrong). Bush appears “strong” only through political happenstance. His folks form the majority. That does not mean he has moral strength. Reagan was strong, Kennedy was strong, some others were too. Strength means more than just hollering about the boogie man. It takes a lot of strength and courage to hammer a country that was already broken (and was not capable of threatening us). Any schoolyard bully can make threats and stomp on weaklings. That isn’t strength. It is cowardice. By the way, where is Osama? I guess he was too tough to catch? Was Bush worried Osama might decide to hit us again? Cowards don’t go after someone who can fight back. Was it more politically expedient to go after an easy scapegoat instead? So, where is this strength?

Metacom said:

Metacom, I am guilty as charged. I did not really read your post before jumping you in a most uncalled for and vicious way. I regret that I didn’t read your post, not only once but twice, and I offer my most sincere apologies and my promise to stop skimming and begin reading. I hope you will accept my apology in the sense in which it is offered.

Of course I will–thank you.

Dude, I’m just not seeing much looniness in here. I’m seeing people who disagree, get inflamed, apologize when called to the carpet and generally act like civilized adults.


My intitial response was far from civilized. I have come to hate GWB so much that my judgement is impaired. I think I will refrain, once again, from posting in the pit until I am a little more in control.

Great. I try to stir up some shit with some good old fashioned foil hattery and it becomes a love in.

I’m such a fuckin’ loser… :frowning:

Say it ain’t so! :smiley: