Bush is suck

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

Isla

Elite member
Sep 12, 2000
7,749
2
0
LOL, I know how you feel.

With choices like Bush and Gore, I'm starting to think we really are going to he11 in a handbasket...
 
F

FrontlineWarrior

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2000
4,905
1
0
Yeah, I know it was biased... it was pretty obvious. I sure Jeb (if he was involved) had to explain it to him with lots of diagrams and pictures for him to understand but GW probably gave the OK for that at least. So screw him.
 
C

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Dirf:

Silly boy. You don't understand how all of this works, do you? Let Daddy tell you.

First we elect the dumbsonofab*tch, then we spend 4 years riding his skinny little butt like Red on a $20 whore.

The media has tons of stuff on Bush, but why use it now when people will complain they are the "liberal" media trying to influence an election? They are waiting till he's elected and then they will prove to the American public what complete idiots they are.

The Fourth Estate has the view that it's intellectual superiority is best used in pedagical fashion to teach the bourgois-after the fact.

The lessons are coming, the lessons are coming. You won't need to sign up in advance, and they'll be free. :p

Edit: Very nice post by the way. :p

 
J

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
I've been waiting for the democratic War Machine to roll across the battlefield and deliver some explosive ordnance as the Day of Reckoning approaches. But if this is the best they can do....?

Joe Q. Public does not like complicated stories like this. We need something a little more substantial than a sex scandal but not as complicated as this (or Whitewater). Hmmmmm....how about some mafia connection? Yeah! Bush used the mafia to "off" a few liberal journalists. That ought to do it. ;)
 
Z

Zucchini

Banned
Dec 10, 1999
4,601
0
0
Heh, what we really need is an amendment to the constitution so we can elect clinton for another term:) hehe he rocks!
 
F

FrontlineWarrior

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2000
4,905
1
0
That's along the lines of what the article said, Chess9. Man that's a pretty lame thing to do by the media (whether or not they're actually doing it). They have the power to elect anyone they want (almost)... why not just vote for the best one? Ok ok, so maybe there isn't a "best one" in this case =P, so maybe they're trying to elect the one they can get the most dirt and jokes on for 4 years, but still, that's pretty lame.

BTW, uhhh please don't refer to yourself as my daddy. That's just gross. :D
 
S

Stealth1024

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2000
2,266
0
0
Read my signature message below.

Vote Bush/Cheney! Do you want the government spending your money for you?
 
M

MrChicken

Senior member
Feb 18, 2000
844
0
0
I've said this before, Gore sensitized everybody to negative attacks by complaining when the Repubs went after him for campaign financing. Now whenever there is an attack by one side, it adds voters to the other side, so niether side attacks now.
 
E

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
"allegedly" and "circumstantial "

Not any meat to this story. Some of his other "facts" are completely wrong. Looks like some people are getting desperate.

I especially like the spin so some people are trying to pull. We'll let Bush win so we can make fun of him for the next four years. Dang near spit my drink out on that one.

It's still a close race, pick the candidate that you think will do the best for America for the next 4 years and go vote.



Chess, didn't you hear that Red won the lottery, make that a $40 whore. ;)
 
NFS4

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,647
26
91


<< Chess, didn't you hear that Red won the lottery, make that a $40 whore. >>


Come again?
 
J

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
You know what's even more sad than Bush actually winning? The poor showing of third-parties this time around. Nader at best managed 5%, Browne once polled at 6% then fell off into the sub 1% zone, and Buchanan, deservedly, never got above 1% in the critical polls toward the end. Truly disheartening.

Now Bush will take the Oath and we'll have the same old crap as before only with a Republican flavor (talk of fewer taxes, talk of spending cuts, talk of government size reductions, talk of education reform). Nothing meaningful will materialize partly because the Democrats will be sulking for 4 years; they'll be reluctant to be bi-partisan on much of anything substantial. Woo is us I'm afraid.

Ah, Harry B. We hardly knew ye.
 
E

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Sorry Red, I misremembered one of your earlier posts, or you changed it after I had read it.
Red
&quot;I won the Lotto..I wish &quot;
Ever won anything on line
Oh well, you can go ahead and splurge anyway. ;)


If the media had anything on Bush, it would be all over the place. End of story.

If you want to dip into the cess pool, look up the story on Gore and the zinc mining on his property. Same sort of stuff as the story on Bush in the first post. Allegations.
 
J

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Yep, thanks to Wild Bill's formidible War Room, fine folks like Betty Curey, cabinet members like Reno, spinmeisters like Carville, deflectionist press secretaries like Lockhart and the guy who preceeded him...much better spinmeister...forget his name right now...anyway thanks to 8 years of desensitization, misdirection and demonization of all that's &quot;Independent Council&quot;, Joe Q. Public may never give a rat's ass about a decent scandal again. Even FOX might be hard-pressed to scoop a scandal with enough firepower to inflame the populous.
 
I

I'm Typing

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,208
0
0
Red: who says bushlite thought this up? Someone else thought of it, of course, and he just signed off on it. There have been several in-depth articles on the land grab deal in minor media sources; just search the net for them. But why are these reports only in minor media sources?

People seem to forget that the &quot;liberal&quot; media is owned by very conservative billionaires (exception?Ted Turner)?something the conservatives in the media NEVER mention (gee, does anyone wonder why????). It is in their best interest to see bushlite elected, no matter how bad it might be for the common man. A story over the weekend from that liberal commie pinko AP wire service called bushlite &quot;Reaganesque&quot; in his philosophy and policies. The only thing bushlite and Reagan share at this time is intellectual capacity.

In other words, there is good reason why the attack dogs are not going after bushlite...the owners of the media are not allowing the reporters to do their jobs.
 
R

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0


<< Yes, but he isn't one of their right wing attack dogs. >>



Chess9,

No, he's not. He's a left-wing attack dog. The Nation is a radical left publication. It appears it is you who are confused.

Russ, NCNE
 
J

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
I'm Typing,

You don't expect anyone to believe there's conservative bias in the mainstream TV media do you? Most journalists, if not the owners, are democrats (7/10?, 9/10?). Apart from FOX's slant, everyone else is either left of center, or way left of center or excruciatingly left of center. Just yesterday on CNN I watched an autobiographical show of Albert Gore. They glossed over ever major scandal he's ever been involved in and finished proclaiming Gore as a &quot;straight arrow&quot;. If that's not bias I don't know what is? Overall, though, the show wasn't overtly bias but it certainly put a golden halo over Gore's head. You can take simliar rips at FOX.

I treat the media like the main Food Groups: get a well-balanced diet from each group and you'll end up with something closer to the truth.
 
D

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Alterman is a so called 'journalist' for The Nation... how much credibility could you possibly give him?

All you need to see is the very first line:
<<I?M NOT TALKING about Bush?s abysmal record as governor of Texas, where he presided over a steady worsening of the environment>>

As soon as you saw that line you knew everything that followed would just be a bunch of unsubstantiated pinko crap as a desperate attempt to put Bush in the same category as Clinton and Gore.

If there really was a story there, any kind of a story, the liberal press would have been all over it from the get-go. The fact that they aren't indicates that there's not even smoke there, let alone fire.
 
R

Ranger X

Lifer
Mar 18, 2000
11,218
1
0
I'm guessing that this year more votes will be shelled out to the &quot;other&quot; parties. Where is Ross Perot this election? :)
 
N

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
I stopped reading that after the first sentance.







Bush is a good man.





I like the facts that he:

supports emphasizing free enterprise solutions to social problems
opposes control of public education by powerful unions
supports educational choice for parents (vouchers)
opposes unrestricted abortion on demand
opposes increased taxes on coal &amp; oil (BTU tax)
supports elimination of the marriage penalty tax
supports elimination of the death tax
supports banning partial birth abortions
opposes public financing of abortions
opposes federal firearms registration &amp; licensing of gun owners
opposes adoption of children by homosexuals
supports prescription drug benefits for medicare recipients
opposes placing US troops under UN control
supports federal tort reform &amp; conservative judges
supports allowing younger workers to invest a portion of their social security tax in a private account

(Bush&amp;Gore were send 2000 Federal Issues Servey by certified mail or fax.)
 
N

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
I forgot one thing:

Gore only agrees on one thing, and that's prescription drug benefits for medicare recipients.






I want Bush to give me my tax money back instead of having gore spend THREE TIMES more than that clown Clinton did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom