John Stewart owning Bush for the 2253215th time

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 22, 2005, 12:30 am

HAHA I love Bush, but Stewart does such a good job making fun of him.

http://www.kwinkies.com/index.php?mode=blog&id=1677

Drolgin Steingrinder · January 22, 2005, 12:14 pm

He's spelled 'Jon' - you know, like Sylvos irl!

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » January 22, 2005, 6:32 pm

That was great, lol.

But seriously, I can't believe you guys voted for this fool. Any speech he makes without having it written by some other guy is awful. They are so ridiculously stupid that a small child could have done it better. I made better speeches when I was in fucking 4th grade.

And let alone holding a discussion, the guy is fucking brainless. I feel sorry for the black guy in this movie, and anyone who was present at that town hall meeting.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 22, 2005, 7:52 pm

Watching Bush speak without a pre-written speech (not written by him mind you) is embarrassing to watch.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » January 22, 2005, 9:02 pm

Stewart and the entire Daily Show are, sadly, miles ahead of anything in the mainstream media, left or right. I feel like I get a more accurate news scoop from the Daily Show than any other organization, period. The fact that they have been legitamized by high profile news guests is testament to their power and influence.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 22, 2005, 9:04 pm

/shrug

I'd rather see someone speaking on his own versus some canned, politically correct, bland script.

Sure, Bush is pretty rough when speaking on his own, but at least you know it is really him speaking, embarrassing moments or otherwise.

As far as the life expectency thing... maybe it wasn't PC, but was it or was it not the truth? You are going to mock him for speaking about facts now?

I wish I had seen that event on television so I could see whether what he was saying was being taken out of context.

Anyway, yeah, Jon Stewart is funny, and that clip was humorous, I won't deny that.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 22, 2005, 9:38 pm

I'd rather have someone with half a brain talk by themself and not a complete braindead one.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 22, 2005, 11:07 pm

Kelshara wrote:I'd rather have someone with half a brain talk by themself and not a complete braindead one.

Where haven't I seen this before.

Democrats (liberals?) apparently are sore losers.

/em waits expectantly to be called whatever your buzzword of the week is.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » January 22, 2005, 11:08 pm

His life expectancy statement refers to familes that pay money in and get nothing back - calling that unfair since that money then just goes to the govt. Personal accounts would be willable. Why is that a strange concept that draws mocking?

He's your President like it or not, and he isn't playing armchair quarterback and bitching about petty bs. Take notes, he's making a positive difference in people's lives.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » January 22, 2005, 11:13 pm

Chris Rock made the same exact statement and I recall many blacks agreeing.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 23, 2005, 2:43 am

Rekaar. wrote:His life expectancy statement refers to familes that pay money in and get nothing back - calling that unfair since that money then just goes to the govt. Personal accounts would be willable. Why is that a strange concept that draws mocking?

He's your President like it or not, and he isn't playing armchair quarterback and bitching about petty bs. Take notes, he's making a positive difference in people's lives.

Yeah, because in personally funded pensions, it's the blacks in the US that are going to win! ~~ Are you mental?

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » January 23, 2005, 9:04 am

Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:I'd rather have someone with half a brain talk by themself and not a complete braindead one.

Where haven't I seen this before.

Democrats (liberals?) apparently are sore losers.

/em waits expectantly to be called whatever your buzzword of the week is.

Ok, if you aren't a FUCKING MORON, maybe you'd realize this isn't about a liberal vs. conservative approach. This is about having a president with a fucking IQ over that of your average special olympics contestant. Who the fuck cares if hes talking on his own, and worse yet, the fact that he is, means he's expressing his actual intelligence which is worse than that of a soap dish. If a soap dish is more intelligent than the president of the most powerful nation in the world -- there is a problem.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 23, 2005, 11:41 am

Rivera Bladestrike wrote: Ok, if you aren't a FUCKING MORON, maybe you'd realize this isn't about a liberal vs. conservative approach. This is about having a president with a fucking IQ over that of your average special olympics contestant. Who the fuck cares if hes talking on his own, and worse yet, the fact that he is, means he's expressing his actual intelligence which is worse than that of a soap dish. If a soap dish is more intelligent than the president of the most powerful nation in the world -- there is a problem.

Hey Rekaar, here's one of your armchair quarterbacks.

I'd be interested in some facts to back up your claims about President Bushes IQ.

It's been said many times... speaking ability != intelligence, but I guess you have to have some intelligence to realize that.

You appear to be a common sore loser to me, jumping on the 'let's insult President Bush' bandwagon.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 23, 2005, 12:23 pm

Aruman wrote:
Rivera Bladestrike wrote: Ok, if you aren't a FUCKING MORON, maybe you'd realize this isn't about a liberal vs. conservative approach. This is about having a president with a fucking IQ over that of your average special olympics contestant. Who the fuck cares if hes talking on his own, and worse yet, the fact that he is, means he's expressing his actual intelligence which is worse than that of a soap dish. If a soap dish is more intelligent than the president of the most powerful nation in the world -- there is a problem.
Hey Rekaar, here's one of your armchair quarterbacks.

I'd be interested in some facts to back up your claims about President Bushes IQ.

It's been said many times... speaking ability != intelligence, but I guess you have to have some intelligence to realize that.

You appear to be a common sore loser to me, jumping on the 'let's insult President Bush' bandwagon.

You are such a pathetic half-wit sheep. Why do any of us need to be sore losers? Bush's record in the White House alone is enough reason to insult him. Not to mention the businesses he successfully ruined before riding his father's coattails into politics. You spoon-fed fuckers refuse to acknowledge that he is a worthless President. You don't even know wtf you stand for you are so wrapped up in vague ideologies that mean nothing.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 23, 2005, 12:29 pm

I'd say the exact same thing about Bush speaking if he was a democrat. He is an embarrassment to the country. I make fun of him for who he is, but it is what he has done that disgusts me. Big difference there, sonny.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 23, 2005, 1:52 pm

Only Republican presidents have been made fun of? Nobody has ever made fun of a Democrat president? I smell conspiracy!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 23, 2005, 3:14 pm

Lalanae wrote: You are such a pathetic half-wit sheep. Why do any of us need to be sore losers? Bush's record in the White House alone is enough reason to insult him. Not to mention the businesses he successfully ruined before riding his father's coattails into politics. You spoon-fed fuckers refuse to acknowledge that he is a worthless President. You don't even know wtf you stand for you are so wrapped up in vague ideologies that mean nothing.

Nothing new to see here... move along.

Same old worn out, tired insults from the Democratic fanbois...

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 23, 2005, 3:16 pm

Aslanna wrote:Only Republican presidents have been made fun of? Nobody has ever made fun of a Democrat president? I smell conspiracy!

Making fun of someone is one thing.

The people in this forum have me thinking they would step on the gas instead of hitting the brakes if they saw President Bush crossing the street in front of them.

These people have issues.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 23, 2005, 3:32 pm

Nah he wouldn't be worth going to jail over. You on the other hand...

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 23, 2005, 3:39 pm

What is this "armchair quarterbacks" bullshit?

Most everyone on this board is, for the most part, an "armchair quarterback".

You saying that Bush is not an "armchair quarterback" makes no fucking sense. He's the President of the United States. It's kind of difficult for him not to have an impact.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 23, 2005, 3:50 pm

Kelshara wrote:Nah he wouldn't be worth going to jail over. You on the other hand...

Thanks for proving my point...

Psychos-R-Us alive and well in VV. Who else is in your little club Kelshara?

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » January 23, 2005, 3:54 pm

Aruman wrote:
Rivera Bladestrike wrote: Ok, if you aren't a FUCKING MORON, maybe you'd realize this isn't about a liberal vs. conservative approach. This is about having a president with a fucking IQ over that of your average special olympics contestant. Who the fuck cares if hes talking on his own, and worse yet, the fact that he is, means he's expressing his actual intelligence which is worse than that of a soap dish. If a soap dish is more intelligent than the president of the most powerful nation in the world -- there is a problem.
Hey Rekaar, here's one of your armchair quarterbacks.

I'd be interested in some facts to back up your claims about President Bushes IQ.

It's been said many times... speaking ability != intelligence, but I guess you have to have some intelligence to realize that.

You appear to be a common sore loser to me, jumping on the 'let's insult President Bush' bandwagon.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

one site that breaks down IQ's of Kerry and Bush

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 23, 2005, 4:39 pm

The best part of the whole thing was:

Our President is living in The Truman Show.
Nothing happens around him that isn't planned.
I don't even think he knows we're out here watching.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 23, 2005, 4:55 pm

Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Nah he wouldn't be worth going to jail over. You on the other hand...
Thanks for proving my point...

Psychos-R-Us alive and well in VV. Who else is in your little club Kelshara?

Yes I was obviously serious about that!

However, since you eat everything Bush tells you for breakfast I'm not surprised you thought I was.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » January 23, 2005, 4:58 pm

Avestan, it doesn't matter what you score on standardized tests. In the manner that I am criticizing Bush is expressed intelligence. He could be Steven Hawking on the tests that evaluate grammer, but he doesn't even know simple words like sovereign, strategy, makes a fool of himself regularly in front of live audiences. Just look at the clips of him in the video for example. The meaningless dribble coming from his mouth is puzzling his audience, and these are hardcore bush supporters!

And this isn't an issue of conservative, republican, liberal or democrat. Its simply an issue of me not being able to have pride in my own nation because we got a clown out there. I think he'd be a fun guy to go out and have a beer with, but by no means has he given me a reason to think hes got things under control.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 23, 2005, 5:21 pm

Aruman wrote:
Lalanae wrote: You are such a pathetic half-wit sheep. Why do any of us need to be sore losers? Bush's record in the White House alone is enough reason to insult him. Not to mention the businesses he successfully ruined before riding his father's coattails into politics. You spoon-fed fuckers refuse to acknowledge that he is a worthless President. You don't even know wtf you stand for you are so wrapped up in vague ideologies that mean nothing.
Nothing new to see here... move along.

Same old worn out, tired insults from the Democratic fanbois...

Yeah because screaming "SORE LOSERS!" everytime someone criticizes Bush is not worn out

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 23, 2005, 5:25 pm

http://www.smilepop.com/index.cfm?actio ... e_id=50004

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » January 23, 2005, 6:51 pm

Brotha wrote:http://www.smilepop.com/index.cfm?actio ... e_id=50004

I introduce any of these three sites, feel free to enjoy them:
http://www.tubgirl.com
http://www.lemonparty.org
http://www.detroitharcore.com

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 23, 2005, 8:46 pm

Lalanae wrote: Yeah because screaming "SORE LOSERS!" everytime someone criticizes Bush is not worn out

Obviously... 2 posts saying that I think someone who criticizes Bush is a sore loser clearly puts me in the same category as those people with the 'skipping record' reputations in these forums.

Bush has done some things I don't agree with, and I am sure every president has done something that a large percentage of the US population didn't agree with. If President Bush does something warranting impeachment then I'm all for it, but until that day comes, he deserves the support of the people because of the office he holds and was elected to.

It seems to me that some people just can't accept the fact that he was elected and choose to try to ridicule him every chance they get as a form of denial.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 23, 2005, 9:02 pm

Aruman wrote:
Lalanae wrote: Yeah because screaming "SORE LOSERS!" everytime someone criticizes Bush is not worn out
Obviously... 2 posts saying that I think someone who criticizes Bush is a sore loser clearly puts me in the same category as those people with the 'skipping record' reputations in these forums.

Bush has done some things I don't agree with, and I am sure every president has done something that a large percentage of the US population didn't agree with. If President Bush does something warranting impeachment then I'm all for it, but until that day comes, he deserves the support of the people because of the office he holds and was elected to.

It seems to me that some people just can't accept the fact that he was elected and choose to try to ridicule him every chance they get as a form of denial.

Everytime you bring up impeachment that brings up blowjobs. So, you still think lying about a blowjob, in any context, is a greater flaw in a president than killing hundreds of thousands of people on a flimsy pretext.

Go You S A!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 23, 2005, 9:33 pm

Zaelath wrote: Everytime you bring up impeachment that brings up blowjobs. So, you still think lying about a blowjob, in any context, is a greater flaw in a president than killing hundreds of thousands of people on a flimsy pretext.
Go You S A!

I'm not even going to go into all the other reasons there were for the invasion... it's been beat to death already.

I will say again that I choose to look at all the reasons there were for the invasion instead of having tunnel vision and focusing on just one.

As far as the Clinton fiasco... that has been talked about before also so no need to discuss that anymore.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 23, 2005, 9:47 pm

You mean all the excuses that were trotted out after the previous one had been shown to be a farce? Yeah, I've looked at them.

Rivera Bladestrike · January 23, 2005, 10:09 pm

Its simple, conservatives are against blow jobs and for war.

If he invaded a nation for no reason AND got a blow job. He'd probably be looking for work out in Texas after his impeachment trial.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 23, 2005, 11:07 pm

Its simple, conservatives are against blow jobs

Best damn reason I've ever heard to not be a conservative!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 23, 2005, 11:44 pm

Zaelath wrote:You mean all the excuses that were trotted out after the previous one had been shown to be a farce? Yeah, I've looked at them.

Trotted out after? Heh... Many of the things Hussein did happened well before the invasion.

Dare I say tunnel vision again for the 2nd time? Or will I be constantly bringing that up too?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 23, 2005, 11:55 pm

Aruman wrote:
Zaelath wrote:You mean all the excuses that were trotted out after the previous one had been shown to be a farce? Yeah, I've looked at them.
Trotted out after? Heh... Many of the things Hussein did happened well before the invasion.

Dare I say tunnel vision again for the 2nd time? Or will I be constantly bringing that up too?

Hussein DID a lot of things, so did Pol Pot, so did Edi Amin, so have a lot of people you implicitly support or did nothing about. You can't show a cause and effect relationship between actions like Husseins and invading the country since it's never happened before, even when said actions were on a far greater scale. Using these actions as a rationale for war came AFTER you were already there.

You can say tunnel vision as often as you like, seeing as you have the blinkered view that America can do no wrong and if they invade someone it must have been the right thing to do, because you're such nice, enlightened people.

Perhaps you should join a knitting circle with revisionist historian of note, VP Cheney.

EDIT: If you had a proud history of giving a damn about brown people being slaughtered in civil actions where you didn't have a vested interest, the war in Iraq would have not only have been expected and accepted, but overdue.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 24, 2005, 1:18 am

Zaelath wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Zaelath wrote:You mean all the excuses that were trotted out after the previous one had been shown to be a farce? Yeah, I've looked at them.
Trotted out after? Heh... Many of the things Hussein did happened well before the invasion.

Dare I say tunnel vision again for the 2nd time? Or will I be constantly bringing that up too?
Hussein DID a lot of things, so did Pol Pot, so did Edi Amin, so have a lot of people you implicitly support or did nothing about. You can't show a cause and effect relationship between actions like Husseins and invading the country since it's never happened before, even when said actions were on a far greater scale. Using these actions as a rationale for war came AFTER you were already there.

You can say tunnel vision as often as you like, seeing as you have the blinkered view that America can do no wrong and if they invade someone it must have been the right thing to do, because you're such nice, enlightened people.

Perhaps you should join a knitting circle with revisionist historian of note, VP Cheney.

EDIT: If you had a proud history of giving a damn about brown people being slaughtered in civil actions where you didn't have a vested interest, the war in Iraq would have not only have been expected and accepted, but overdue.

I am saying that people should support the Presidency as an institution, not so much as a person.

I don't care who is in office, democrat or republican. I'll still stand by their decisions, because it is partly what they were elected for. I can disagree with the decision though, but I don't need to disparage with IQ insults or rag on him because he isn't a professional speaker.

All you people resorting to name calling and insults are like a whiny, spoiled child who is throwing a temper tantrum.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 24, 2005, 2:03 am

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence?

There's a reason all democracies I'm aware of have a way of removing any elected official mid-term.

Blind obedience to your current leader is not a feature I would associate with democratic government.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 24, 2005, 3:41 am

Zaelath wrote:The price of freedom is eternal vigilence?

There's a reason all democracies I'm aware of have a way of removing any elected official mid-term.

Blind obedience to your current leader is not a feature I would associate with democratic government.

Blind obedience? The only people that applies to is people in the military as far as President Bushs authority goes.

Civilians are much less restricted in their freedoms, but they still have to abide by laws, whether they agree with them or not.

So, using a police officer as the closest authority figure the average civilian would encounter: Would you blindly obey a police officer if they gave you a legal order, or would you use the kind of insults and comments the haters here are so fond of when talking to the officer?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 24, 2005, 7:53 am

I am saying that people should support the Presidency as an institution, not so much as a person.

I don't care who is in office, democrat or republican. I'll still stand by their decisions, because it is partly what they were elected for

And because you are a fucking sheep.
Your belief that somehow ascending to office ensures a bad decision cannot be made is worrying.

Governments blow smoke up your arse every time they communicate. Their entire life is spent making themselves look good, or at least making the other guy look bad. It is the job of patriots everywhere and in every country to keep a close eye on those in power and to NEVER take their bullshit at face value.
THAT is how you show the "office of the presidency" its due respect. You make sure whoever's currently occupying it isn't abusing or tarnishing it, and you never, ever blindly believe that they tell you.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 24, 2005, 10:25 am

Aruman wrote:
Zaelath wrote:The price of freedom is eternal vigilence?

There's a reason all democracies I'm aware of have a way of removing any elected official mid-term.

Blind obedience to your current leader is not a feature I would associate with democratic government.
Blind obedience? The only people that applies to is people in the military as far as President Bushs authority goes.

Civilians are much less restricted in their freedoms, but they still have to abide by laws, whether they agree with them or not.

So, using a police officer as the closest authority figure the average civilian would encounter: Would you blindly obey a police officer if they gave you a legal order, or would you use the kind of insults and comments the haters here are so fond of when talking to the officer?

The military are not bound to blindly obey anyone in the military chain of command, including the commander-in-chief, they are bound by the UCMJ to only obey legal orders.

Bush isn't applying law, he's making it up as he goes along.

Your example inserts a qualifying term, "legal". If the officer gave me an order I didn't feel was legal he would have to use force to make me comply. (taking into account I'm not black)

There's also a wide gulf between "hating" and being a malcontent. For example, I don't "hate" Bush, it's not his fault he's thick. Besides, you all go on like hate is in itself a bad thing, I'm sure you all hate Osama and with some justification. The problem is, compassionate conservatives appear to completely lack empathy and don't realise that to many Iraqis Bush is as big a demon as Osama and Saddam combined; he's certainly got the runs on the board.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 24, 2005, 9:52 pm

Zaelath wrote: Bush isn't applying law, he's making it up as he goes along.

Sure he is, everyone knows that the President of the United States can make what he wants law. He can completely subvert the process anytime he likes.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 25, 2005, 2:17 am

Pretty much: http://www.usgovinfo.about.com/library/ ... jres23.htm

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 25, 2005, 4:02 am

Zaelath wrote:Pretty much: http://www.usgovinfo.about.com/library/ ... jres23.htm

What are you babbling about? That is not a new law, that is how it has been for some time.

Who is it that actually gives the authority to declare a war? Give you a hint... read your link closely.

In case you have difficulty with that heres a snippet from the top:

Authorizing Use of Force 09-14-01
Complete Text of bill S. J. Res 23

SJ 23 ES

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 25, 2005, 4:21 am

That bill gave him carte blanche to invade whoever he feels like and you know it. It should probably be unconstitutional because it allows the president to bypass congress (albeit they voted themselves into obsolescence).

Nevermind, you'll just bleat some more, perhaps waffle on about checks and balances (that the republicans have leveraged 9/11 sentiment to bypass), and generally wave the flag.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 25, 2005, 4:46 am

Zaelath wrote:That bill gave him carte blanche to invade whoever he feels like and you know it. It should probably be unconstitutional because it allows the president to bypass congress (albeit they voted themselves into obsolescence).

Nevermind, you'll just bleat some more, perhaps waffle on about checks and balances (that the republicans have leveraged 9/11 sentiment to bypass), and generally wave the flag.

*cough*

So... tell me again how President Bush was the one who made this a law and bypassed the process?

Hate to spring this on you also, but this same thing will occur any time the US is attacked on US soil by foriegn countries. It doesn't matter who the president is at the time.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » January 25, 2005, 5:23 am

Aruman wrote:
Zaelath wrote:That bill gave him carte blanche to invade whoever he feels like and you know it. It should probably be unconstitutional because it allows the president to bypass congress (albeit they voted themselves into obsolescence).

Nevermind, you'll just bleat some more, perhaps waffle on about checks and balances (that the republicans have leveraged 9/11 sentiment to bypass), and generally wave the flag.
*cough*

So... tell me again how President Bush was the one who made this a law and bypassed the process?

Hate to spring this on you also, but this same thing will occur any time the US is attacked on US soil by foriegn countries. It doesn't matter who the president is at the time.

Hate to bring this to you, but Iraq didnt attack the US. Terrorists did, which are not the same thing. Or should you also invade yourself after the first attack on the WTC? That was an american that did that, right?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 25, 2005, 5:46 am

Hesten wrote:
Hate to bring this to you, but Iraq didnt attack the US. Terrorists did, which are not the same thing. Or should you also invade yourself after the first attack on the WTC? That was an american that did that, right?

I love these comments from selective readers...

Let me quote myself again since you seemed to miss it:

Aruman wrote: Hate to spring this on you also, but this same thing will occur any time the US is attacked on US soil by foriegn countries. It doesn't matter who the president is at the time.

In relation to terrorism, yes, your good buddy Saddam was quite involved in that, however, you and I have no idea if Saddam had any part in aiding Al-Qaida in any form.

Anyway, the invasion of Iraq wasn't about 9/11, so... see ya!

nobody · Post by **nobody** » January 25, 2005, 5:57 am

no that was al qeada too. they were trying to do the same thing of bringing the whole building down. they blew up a van parked directly next to a support column but underestimated the structure. there were 8 or 9 of them and they had been to training camps in afghanistan. (or was it denmark?)

and to be anal about it iraq, did attack the US and GB constantly while our jets were patrolling the no fly zone. they refused to comply with weapons inspectors and prove that they had no wmd's for over 10 years. thats...1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10! basically they told the UN to fuck off and gave nations like iran and north korea the idea that they could get away with developing WMD's and we wouldn't do a damn thing about it. i agree the way we went about iraq was a HUGE mistake but the intentions were justified.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 25, 2005, 9:51 am

and to be anal about it iraq, did attack the US and GB constantly while our jets were patrolling the no fly zone

I didn't realise the nofly zones over Iraq were considered 'American Soil'