Thank you for being the voice of reason. Only one quote in the article suggests that Bush’s crew even knew that the rooms were booked: “Bush’s people seemed to be under the impression that they would just hand over the suites but there was no way Mick was going to do that.” And that’s from some unnamed member of The Stones’ entourage. Too little info to blame anyone for anything.
I’d bet that this is just a “dispute” contrived by the newspaper.
-First, as far as arrogant goes, it’s MICK JAGGER, dude. How much more arrogant can you get?
-Second, he’s not Jagger’s president (unless Jagger has since become a US citizen, which if he has, skip this), and so what does Jagger owe him?
-Neither of them were in the nation of their birth-they were both foreigners in a ritzy hotel.
-It’s not good manners to expect someone to give up their reserved room just because YOU want it. Make a polite request, fine, but if the person refuses, acknowledge that they have that right.
-Finally, if there were better rooms for Jagger to be rewarded with, why not give them to Bush then?
If you’d give up your room, that’s YOUR DECISION. I wouldn’t no matter if it were Bush, Tony Blair, Queen Elizabeth, or the freaking Pope.
I’m not ashamed of anybody, but just the level of schadenfreude, in this thread especially, concerns me. I mean, the level of hatred expressed for President Bush seems to go so far beyond what’s reasonable. In this thread alone, he’s been called a “monster” and a “thing”, that he’s “responsible for killing tens of thousands”, and has “people snatched off the street and tortured”
The whole level of divisiveness that this president evokes just really frightens me, and I sometimes wonder if these extreme emotions might be more destructive for the country in the long run than Bush ever could be.
There was a longstanding tradition, as noted by Clothahump, that the incumbent of the Presidency of the United States of America deserved respect, not for the individual so much as for the high office which he held. That tradition survived intact through the presidencies of Buchanan, Grant, Harding, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, etc.
Up until January 21, 1993. And it was not the liberals who destroyed it.
If every good Bush-bashing thread has a requisite reference to Bill Clinton, let this be the one here. Because the Republican Party and its affiliated radical-conservative loons deserve it, fully. What’s sauce for the goose, after all…
You say Chutzaph, I say penis, let’s cut the whole thing off! (or at least the tip)
;j
Humpster, you’ve done this one already:
I’m frankly sick of the blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred directed at George Bush
Didn’t work then, much less now.
Get some new material (if that’s possible)
Oh, calm down. I believe the same poster said all of those things.
BTW, triple fuck Bush, his cronies and his moronic and blind supporters.
and the ones that can see, too!
And said poster wasn’t right, how exactly?
I thought it was just good clean fun to see Bush get a little comeuppence. Sort of like giggling when the school bully’s pants fall down. Nothing to take too seriously- so Bush has to take his decidership somewhere else. Ho-hum.
I liked Jagger before this and even more now. I wouldn’t have given up the room either. Of course, the hotel would have thrown me out on my keister so it takes someone of Jagger’s stature to actually tell Bush to find a different room. So for all the little guys, this was like a breath of fresh air. Forgive us for rejoicing in it.
I can’t speak to “monster” or “thing,” as those are completely subjective insults. But as far as being responsible for killing tens of thousands, do you have any idea how many Iraqi people have died because the president[sup]TM[/sup] used 9/11 and Al Qaida and WMDs as excuses to invade? Nobody knows exactly, but it’s well over 20 thousand. And are you aware of the fact that most of the prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Graib were scooped up by non-American people who were paid to bring in suspects? Or that they’ve been tortured? Or that our current attorney general (whom Bush selected) has referred to the Geneva COnventions as “quaint” or that our Vice President (also whom Bush selected) has been a firm opponent of any legal measures that might limit torture for detainees? I’m sorry, but saying Bush is “responsible for killing tens of thousands”, and has “people snatched off the street and tortured” is unfortunately not too far off the mark.
As for the divisiveness frightening you, maybe you should consider the probable long term consequences of this administration a bit more closely, or look at how many moral hoops people have to jump through (or ignore) in order to rationalize continuing to support the guy who handed them their tax cuts. Yeah, we non-Bush supporters are bitter, damned bitter. And if all that results in is a little spite vented via schadenfreude, I personally can live with that!
Dammit! my anger has been diffused by your superior logic.
We may never know the truth about the LWMC now!
I was wrong!
Don’t go Humpty , don’t go!
Pot, kettle, or just a jackass? You decide.
Where’s “All of the above”?
And ditto to Polycarp’s last post. For folks like Clothahump, “respect for the President” only occurs when he has a little “(Republican)” next to his name on the ballot.
Get your ass off your shoulders, RedFury. For once, I’m agreeing with you. I’ve simply found someone even more revoltingly partisan than you. 
In fact, I’d like to highlight this for Clothahump:
I’d like Clothahump to consider that this, as much as any other reason, is why people are saying that Bush may well be the worst president in the history of the US. He’s done enormous damage, not only in terms of 1)his shortsighted, moronic, homicidal foreign policy, or 2) his “let them eat cake” and “the poor are only fit to be ground up and used to lubricate the wheels of industry” domestic policy, but 3) his damage to the office of President itself.
I was at my dad’s house this weekend, and he’s a staunch Southern red-state religious Republican. But as we were discussing politics, he looked at me and said, “Bush is a terrible president. He’s arrogant and stupid, and he won’t listen to anybody that criticizes him. I can’t believe I voted for him. And he’s a liar!”
I think lots of people are finally reaching this conclusion.
To be fair, he did stop at 2000. Presumably that means he understands that Dubya will be far worse than Clinton - even to his taxcut shock syndromed “brain”.
-Joe
This is rich! I have been embarrased by people like humpy for a long time. I wish I had participated in the other thread, to give him back some of the grief people like him have caused me for years. Its people like him that make americans the hated laughingstock of the world.
And going hand in hand with this great respect for the LBJ and Nixon presidencies was the people’s overwhelming resolve to see the Vietnam War to its inevitable victorious conclusion, and the universal condemnation of the tiny few who would even dare consider the possibility of illegal behavior in the White House.
Polycarp? Whatchoo smokin’, man?
Yeah, too bad they reached it long after it might have made a difference.