Bush pig

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Saw the Bush pig on the news, trying to take credit for Greenspan cutting interest rates. What a self-serving greedy bastard. Disgusting.

-- (4 years of @ pighead. sux), January 03, 2001

Answers

I swore off watching Clinton some years ago. Even turned the radio down when I heard his voice. It helped. Try it with Bush. Waiting till Bush actually does something that pisses you off might be a thought. But then, nevermind.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 03, 2001.

"Waiting till Bush actually does something that pisses you off might be a thought. But then, nevermind."

Waiting?? LOL, you gotta be kidding!

How about taking over our country in a right-wing coup like a sleazy dictator of a third-world banana republic and setting a new low standard for treason and the destruction of our democracy?

For that matter, how about EVERYTHING the asshole scumbag has done since the minute he was born, INCLUDING BEING BORN!!

-- (bush the lowest @ lifeform. ever), January 03, 2001.


I love this right wing conspiracy coup stuff. Of course if the Supremes had ruled the other way it would be "Democracy in action" LOL, hey pal, don't worry "I feel your pain"!!!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), January 04, 2001.

Bush was a 49 percenter in 2000 and Clinton was a 43 percenter in 1992.

Still suggest turning of the TV.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 04, 2001.


Unk, we been trolled.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Lotsa line out.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 04, 2001.



Our democracy is based on the principle that every vote counts, not every vote gets overuled by a dominated supreme court of dictators.

It is unconscionable that some people look the other way when this kind of thing happens, especially those who claim to be Libertarians. Truly a disgrace for the Libertarian Party, and a sobering disillusionment for those who might have had hopes for supporting that party in the future.

-- (yes @ truly. disgraceful and discouraging), January 04, 2001.


Correction: overuled by a "Republican" dominated supreme court of dictators.

-- (sad, sad @ very, very. sad), January 04, 2001.

"Bush was a 49 percenter in 2000"...

and Gore was a 51 percenter.

-- (sad people @ pathetic people. hypocrits traitors, very pathetic), January 04, 2001.


Why, on this thread alone we have the same anon posting to itself 4 times. The Hawk is in the house. Bush haters are really beating themselves up over nothing but it sure as hell is entertaining.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 04, 2001.

The difference between Bush haters and Clinton haters...

Bush haters beat themselves up to protect the democracy of the greatest nation in the world, before the Shrub turns it into a 3rd world dictatorship.

Clinton haters beat themselves off because they are jealous that they can't get blow jobs like Clinton does!

ROTFLMAO!!!

-- (hee hee hee @ haa. haa haa!), January 04, 2001.



This is fun. Doesn't make much sense but still it's fun.

Question: Are the libs here the Bill Press types or genuine? Ask that cause I listened to Bill long ago on KFI in LA and it was quickly clear he didn't believe anything he said. Bill was just an expert in Socratian arguement and landed himself a job as it turned out on the liberal side. Didn't really matter to him. God bless Bill for a good living, but, he disappoints when it comes to honesty.

What's the lineup here?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 04, 2001.


"Of course if the Supremes had ruled the other way it would be "Democracy in action":

Actually, you're right Unc. If the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled to count all the votes in a fair manner, then they would have spared Democracy, and we'd have indeed seen democracy in action. The court has been soundly taken to task by the country for its crime against justice. Long essays by veteran court watches and legal scholars have been inked that show just how shabby this bad-faith decision was, and how duped we ALL were, even two justices on the court who thought the Fascist Five might act in good faith and compromise. There's not a shred of legal evidence that they based their opinion upon, and then they quite ignorantly made clear that their ruling was "special" for "this case only" and could never be pointed to again.

They've always had dirty diapers, so to speak. It's just that we've never seen them changed in public.

You think the GOP cares about Democracy? Ha! These are people who don't understand simple right from wrong. The justices ruled solely for one reason: to ensure that the court becomes wholly reactionary, and that civil rights and women's rights are stamped out.

Whatever flames of freedom you Republicans and Libertarians delude yourselves into thinking burn brightly now have been extinguished by your own ignorance and willful betrayal of our long tradition of democratic principles and social justice.

And ain't democracy, Unc.

-- You're Traitors to Your Country (and@you'll.pay), January 04, 2001.


Is that you Bill?

Will never forget your KFI gig.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 04, 2001.




-- He's Not Only a Pig (thanks@'pubs!.com), January 04, 2001.

Traitors,

That was a nice essay, but I am afraid that I must give you an F minus. You see, we live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), January 04, 2001.



Bush was a 49 percenter in 2000 and Clinton was a 43 percenter in 1992.

Odd, Clinton beat Bush in 1992. So Bush must have been lower than 43% at that time.

The reasoning of that remark is pathetic.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 04, 2001.


Unc:

You are correct. That reflects the fact that the founders were aristocrats and didn't trust the general population. It appears that the present court agrees. Both sides of the argument have a lunatic fringe. My guess is that you will see problems over the next 4 years. If you read the CNN article that I linked on the other thread, you will note that someone torched Dubya's boat the day after the court called the election. I suppose this could get nasty. Since it won't where I live, I can sit back and watch amused. Of course, I wouldn't want to live in Florida. *<))

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 04, 2001.


And speaking of the fringe, our old friends on EZboard are now running an office pool on whether Dubya will be shot before Jan 20. NWO

Oh well.

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 04, 2001.


To: sad people @ pathetic people. hypocrits traitors, very pathetic

Gore did not get 51% of the vote, he got about 1/2 of 1% more of the popular vote than Bush did. Nader got over 2% of the popular vote.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr_pibb@zdnetonebox.com), January 04, 2001.


The United States of America is a Republic that has been struggling to become a Democracy since the Declaration of Independence was signed. A Republic defines a ruling class who govern by majority vote. A Democracy is similar but every citizen has a vote. One of the first steps toward Democracy was when our constitution gave all white males the right to vote when a minority wanted only white males who owned land to vote. After a hundred years or so Black males were given the right to vote. Next came the vote for females then the vote for citizens aged 18. With each expansion of the right to vote the United States becomes less a Republic and closer to becoming a Democracy.

This difference also defines the basic disagreement between our two major political parties. Republic(ans) prefer a Republic while Democrats prefer a Democracy. In a Republic, the leaders decide what is best for the country and dictate policy to the rest of the population. In a Democracy, voters are consulted and polled before policy decisions are made and the majority rules. This is why the 1995 Republican Congress charged our President with a lack of leadership, wishy-washy decisions, and were shocked at his shifting views. They obviously feel that they were elected to 'lead' the people while President Clinton's actions show that he recognizes that he was elected to serve the people.

This is the question that faces America's voters, do we want strong leaders in our government or do we want public servants? The Democratic Party has become a conglomerate of minority groups because we believe that every voter should have an equal voice. The Republican Party has maintained the position that they know what is best for America and the voters should just let them run things.

-- Unc Wants to Be Told Whats Best (can't@think.for.himself), January 04, 2001.


A true Democracy is best illustrated by a mob lynching a black man. Oh sure the black guy objects to it, but he has been outvoted.

How close to this ideal do you wish to go?

-- Uncle Deedah knows what is best, you should listen to him (unkeed@yahoo.com), January 04, 2001.


Unc:

You have lived in the south too long. Those of us in the north are offended. As an example you should have used burning or drowning witches.

Other than that comment, I don't agree with your argument.

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 04, 2001.


Those EZ freaks are really deluded. They think the the NWO will kill Bush? Bush IS the NWO poster boy, Hitler style. That's why people like Deedah vote for him, they like to take orders. Seig Heil der Fuhrer Bush!! Patriots will kill him, TRUE patriots.

-- (kill@shrub.save.democracy), January 04, 2001.

This must be one of those "relentless, right wing reactionary" threads that drove St. Brian away. Somehow, if St. Brian noticed any trace of rudeness in the anti-Bush crowd, he never deigned to mention it. I guess he was too busy being "intellectually honest" to notice more than one side of the story.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 04, 2001.

Of course there was never any trace of rudeness in the relentless "left-wing reactionary liberal hater" threads from the anti-Klinton crowd. No, they were always very courteous and respectful.

-- (BWAAAA@HAAAA.HAAAAAA!!!), January 04, 2001.

Correct. Rudeness we have aplenty. St. Brian was saying this rudeness was *relentlessly* right-wing, and as this thread illustrates, it is balanced and universal. We're unapologetically rude to everone, regardless of sex, color, national origin, political preference, or anything else.

Of course, if the absurdly, mindlessly rude posts are masked off, the thoughtful and intelligent kernels that remain do tend to be more conservative. But this is normal.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 04, 2001.


Shrub killer,

Careful what you say, Carnivore is watching you.

Deedah did not vote for Bush. Deedah does not like to follow orders. Deedah is self-employed so that he does not have to follow dumb orders from a boss. Deedah likes the rule of law. The Supreme court is the final interpreter of the law. The rule of law was followed. Deedah liked that. Deedah would have supported the rule of law had the rule of law favored Gore instead of Bush. Deedah is not a whiner. Deedah is a true American patriot.

-- Uncle Deedah, a shining light of truth and virtue to be admired (unkeed@yahoo.com), January 04, 2001.


This is great.

Have read about left wing nuts but until this forum I've never met any.

On with the show!

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 05, 2001.


"Shrub killer,

Careful what you say, Carnivore is watching you."

HEY CARNIVORE! I'd love to see someone kill the shrub! Whoever kills the shrub is a hero in my eyes. Someone, please kill the shrub!

-- save our country (kill@shrub.now), January 05, 2001.


Deedah:

Rule of law, buddy? Sorry to say, bub, that so far the legal press has derided the supreme court decision as not following the rule of law. The may be the supreme law of the land, but that does not mean they are always right. They were dead wrong on this one, for many reasons.

The supremes are not god, immaculate.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 05, 2001.


FS,

The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the law, thus, their ruling IS the law, thus, their decision in this case IS the rule of law. One may not like any particular decision they make, but that decision is still the law, and abiding that decision is still the rule of law.

For a shining example of the rule of law that set a bee in the bonnet of the right, see Roe V Wade. Has that decision been criticised and debated? Sure, but as much as some hate it and howl about it, it is the law.

Of course Congress can address a bad ruling by crafting new laws, new laws that the high Court will eventually interpret. That is why so much squawking accompanies a new appointment to the court, they are very powerful people.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), January 05, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ