Champas Socialist Champas Socialist

A Bush Loss = Good for the Republicans

A Bush Loss = Good for the Republicans

So we should all vote for Bush?

I think it was Draginol who was saying that although Kerry had won the debates, that he finds the Republican arguments more convincing. Fair enough, but what I don’t understand about the Republicans at the moment is, why on Earth would they choose such an idiot for their leadership? There are smarter people in the Republican party. There are more likeable people in their Party. Wouldn’t they be better off choosing someone else? Wouldn’t it be better for their own cause to have someone who actually understands why they’re doing what they’re doing?

Bush makes the Republican case look even stupider than it actually is. He flip flops about because he doesn’t think for himself. He just does whatever he’s told to do by Cheney, Powell and co. But when he’s actually asked to think on the spot, to explain his position, he just doesn’t know why he’s doing it. We’ve all seen the footage of him being left flabbergasted at press conferences, even when he’s not been asked particularly hard-hitting questions. The press are giving him an opportunity to make his case, but he doesn’t know how to do it.

I can just picture Bush in Government meetings, sitting on the edge of his seat, like an eager little stupid child, watching as these really smart men talk about the issues of the world, using big words that he would like to emulate (or is that emulatate?). I bet Bush sits there thinking “Wow! My Dad must have been really smart to mix with these dudes. They know so much stuff. One day, I wanna be just like them and blow up Iraqis too. They sound like a bad people, cos Dad never seemed to like them. I know how I’ll impress Mr Powell, I’ll say that we should invade Iraq. That made Dad really popular.”. Of course, I may be wrong in assuming that Dubya was sober when he made the decision.

Even if you believe in Republicanism, surely you want somebody who knows what they’re doing to be running the country? It’s dangerous for you to have such a moron having such control.

For an example, look at Australia. The racists didn’t vote for Pauline Hanson to be PM. They voted for John Howard to implement her policies for her because he has half a brain. Howard showed during the debates that he doesn’t completely understand the issues he’s facing or know how to solve them either, but he comes across as having slight intelligence at least.

Who knows what Bush will do next, because he doesn’t even know. But given his track record, it’s not likely to be a good or justified action. If the Republicans lose, at least they can pick a new leader who knows what he’s doing, who knows how to deal with a crisis. The job of US President is an important one that shouldn’t just be left in the hands of any stupid joker with an opinion. You wouldn’t employ someone as the head of a company just because they believe that making a profit is a good goal to have.
17,437 views 61 replies
Reply #51 Top
BlueDev:

No, my statements were not aimed at you, but rather at the left in general and their trend toward crying censorship at a negative response. From what I gather, even suggesting they shouldn't have the right to critisize the president is close enough to censorship to them.

I think it is used as a red herring to attempt to discredit those disagreeing with them. The left is known for pulling the -insert politically sensitive topic here- card as a poor substitution for a well reasoned argument.

I believe in free speech for everyone. Trying to shame your opponent with derogatory terms is an attempt to stifle free speech with public humiliation as the tool.
Reply #52 Top
Champas Socialist:
It may be relevant, but in my opinion it is rude to publically call anyone stupid. That's the way I was taught by my parents and the way I teach my children.
Reply #53 Top
BlueDev:

No, my statements were not aimed at you, but rather at the left in general and their trend toward crying censorship at a negative response. From what I gather, even suggesting they shouldn't have the right to critisize the president is close enough to censorship to them.

I think it is used as a red herring to attempt to discredit those disagreeing with them. The left is known for pulling the -insert politically sensitive topic here- card as a poor substitution for a well reasoned argument.

I believe in free speech for everyone. Trying to shame your opponent with derogatory terms is an attempt to stifle free speech with public humiliation as the tool.


Thanks for the clarification. I rescind my comments and apologize then. Won't delete them so as to not screw up the flow of the discussion.

To be honest, I agree completely. I think we should all be able to stick up for what comes, good and bad. Thanks again.
Reply #54 Top
It may be relevant, but in my opinion it is rude to publically call anyone stupid.


Oh please don't let's go down this road. What would you prefer? Mentally challenged? A few cards short of a deck? A few stubbies short of a six pack?

The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead? The gates are down and the lights are flashing but there's no train coming?

You said:
It's both intellectually weak and dishonest

That's not a bad alternative, but personally I prefer the hamster one. And I would've said "It's stupid and shifty".

Reply #55 Top
It is generally acknowledged that other laws in Australia give us a fairly good chance of keeping some level of free speech (not even the US has full free speech)


Last time I checked Porn is a big industry here and we export over half the World's supply of porn, so you might want to rethink your free speech idea or how about a movie that was nothing more than opinion based? The only time free speech is not free is when it is slander or libel...the rare case is when it is a matter of National Security, so what about Free speech is blocked here in America?

What makes you think George Bush's cousin John Kerry is any better? You do know both are members of the elitest secret society the "Skulls", right?

I bet you can't call John Howard a cunt to his face; you can do that to George Bush in America, even though it is only right and proper to respect the office of President even if you do not respect the man (in my case Clinton/Gore).

Porno Plinko!!
Reply #56 Top
Oh please don't let's go down this road. What would you prefer? Mentally challenged? A few cards short of a deck? A few stubbies short of a six pack?

The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead? The gates are down and the lights are flashing but there's no train coming?


He's a few fries short of a Happy Meal. He's two cans short of a six pack!

Idiot Savant or Political Pundit.

Ignoramus Plinko!!
Reply #57 Top

Reply #54 By: Joey Joe Joe (Anonymous) - 11/1/2004 5:51:09 PM
It may be relevant, but in my opinion it is rude to publically call anyone stupid.


Oh please don't let's go down this road. What would you prefer? Mentally challenged? A few cards short of a deck? A few stubbies short of a six pack?

The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead? The gates are down and the lights are flashing but there's no train coming?


No in other words, don't do it at all.
Reply #58 Top
bet you can't call John Howard a cunt to his face; you can do that to George Bush in America, even though it is only right and proper to respect the office of President even if you do not respect the man (in my case Clinton/Gore).


Sure you can call John Howard that if you want. Chances are you'll be escorted from the room, just like anyone who called Bush one would be, but you could say it without real problems. Remember a political comedian shoved his tongue down an unsuspecting Immigration Minister's ear on national television last election; there's nothing to stop you swearing or doing anything short of assualt against a politician. Police officers are a different matter, but no true Australian cares about the sensibilities of a politician.
Reply #59 Top
No in other words, don't do it at all.

*sigh*
And again, people shouldn't have the right to criticise.
Reply #60 Top
> their trend toward crying censorship at a negative response.

And what of the Right's trend to simply cry "terrorist sympathiser" or start up an argument about whether or not people have the right to criticise politicians?

As I said, I'm rather tiring of this ridiculous censorship debate. I have made a lot of criticisms of Bush and explained why I think he should be replaced. How about somebody telling me why they think Bush is actually intelligent or providing some of that "new information" Dr Guy spoke of. I doubt it would be that new actually, I read a fair bit of Right wing stuff, I just think most of it is fairly flawed.


Regarding calling Howard a cunt, I simply digress for a second to recount the lyrics of one of my favourite GUD songs, to the tune of the M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E song: J-O-H-N-H-O-W-A-R-D He's a c**t he's a c**t A great big walloping dirty f**ckin c**t I f**ked your mum I f**ked your wife and I f**ked your son If I could go back in time I'd give a condom to your Mum!
Reply #61 Top
If I could go back in time I'd give a condom to your Mum!


Good line, Drill Sergeants who are friends of mine use that line quite alot on new recruits. Go ahead talk bad about Bush, as long as you don't mind me talking about John Howard, than alls good here (I just don't like people talking bad about the American Rep when they get all touchy about their rep).

By the by, did you know George Bush and John Kerry are cousins and members of the "Skulls"?

I do like the PM of Japan, every time I hear him speak (even though it gets translated into English) he is very intelligible, and even makes Kerry (even with his senatorial debating skills) look like a complete buffoon, thank Kronos for Badnarik and Libertarian Party. I would vote for Bush if he had different stance on some of issues that I care about and there is no way in the deepest pits of Hades to the highest reaches of "Heaven" would I ever vote for a political scum like Kerry, good lord, the Dems must have scraped the bottom of the barrel when selecting him, Lieberman was the better candidate but they scoffed him off as a Jew and not Liberal enough Democrat.

I watch Newsworld International once in a while, they play CBC (Canada), NHK (Japan), CCTV (China, I think it is a joke, free press in China, seriously they just declared martial law AGAIN), ABC (Australia) DW (Germany), I think there are others but I usually tune into NHK and ABC or CBC once in a while but mostly watch it for the NHK broadcast.

Informational Overload Plinko!!