The Truth About Bush

[mattpravda]

As many of you have observed our comander in chief isn't the brightest bulb in the box, in fact he's pretty much broken right now.
It has been common practice for liberals to bash Bush saying that he is incopotent and that he is illiterate and that he is technichally borderline retarded. Now I'm not saying that these things aren't true, (according to what I've seen they probably are), but what I'm saying is stop bashing Bush, and these are the reasons.
Since this country was established, every Pesident we have had, has had some intelligence, has been fairly successful, has been really intelligent, has been very successful, or a combination of the four mentioned above. Then suddenly this guy comes out of nowhere, who is supposed to be the Republican front runner, he has failed at literally everything he has tried, he can't speek well, he can't read well, and he's been pushed through everything by either his father or his father's friends. How in the hell did this guy even get nominated to run in the primaries, surely the Republicans knew of his competency level, surely they would prefer a more inteligent being instead of Bush. But they chose him anyway, and somehow he won. Now I ask you this, why? Why did he win? Well lets see, Gore lost all three debates, Gore barely protested the miscount, Gore was pretty much a pussy, along with the rest of the Democrats. Thats how Bush got into office. Now I ask you the really important question, what is the significance of having an incompotent president in office, a president who is so incopotent that it is publicly known? The asnwer is this, his role is the scapegoat, he is supposed to be incompotent, so that everything bad is blamed on him and not on the people who are really responsible. The Republicans don't care about getting there name dragged threw the dirt by Bush blatent incompotency, because they still have the Democrats, and the Democrats have a name that's different from the Republican's, and that's all that matters. The Democrats are just Republicans in disgiuse so the Republicans don't really have to worry about the Democrats doing what they want to do. And their are no other parties so they basically automatically win by a weird sort of default.
So dan't bash Bush too much, because he's just a pawn.
This is all just specualtion of course, and it's just a theory, but it might be true.
I'd like to hear some feed back.

[BUTANE]

I disagree that the democrats are just republicans in disquies. I think that all polotions are dirty assholes that only care about themselves. Sometimes people get into office and they do care about the people (demacrats). But the polotitions that care about the people still care about themselves even more. so when they pass laws that claim to help the people it is realy just a law that helps the polititians. Perhaps i am wrong, If i was to run for political office i know that i would run for the peopoe and not for big buisnes's. But I still think that basically democrats and republicans are different but they still care about themselves more than the people. But if you are going to vote (I am not old enogh) vote for demacrats because although they love themselves the people are their still a big priority.

[PoptartKing]

At 5/7/04 10:34 PM, BareNakedMike1 wrote: ok whear is the source of this information?

Tis called speculation. And I'd agree with about half of that. It's pretty clear that Ashcroft and the Pentagon Junta are running things behind scenes and Bush is just a loveable figurehead.

[Wraith]

So you believe that the Republicans and the Democrats are, in secret, one party? I will admit that their political stances on issues has become similiar as of late, but why didn't you just say the political parties are secretly the Illuminati? I would have believed that more.

[JoS]

So according to your logic, Downy is not infact run by a soft teddy bear, but rather some power hungry greedy shadows in the background?

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 5/7/04 11:50 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: So according to your logic, Downy is not infact run by a soft teddy bear, but rather some power hungry greedy shadows in the background?

Isn't this the case?

[JoS]

But the bar is soo cute. It cant be can it? Dam my dreams have been shattered.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/7/04 10:34 PM, BareNakedMike wrote: ok whear is the source of this information?

Just two lines up, he said:

"This is all just specualtion of course, and it's just a theory, but it might be true."

So you can assume ther is no source. However, I do agree with what he said.

[mattpravda]

bumcheekcity knows his shit

[Coop]

Conspiracy theory, anyone?

[IllustriousPotentate]

Really, this whole thing about Bush being a puppet really isn't new. Every President seems to be operated by his gantlet of advisors. The only reason it seems more pronounced now is that the administration has been held up to closer scrutiny than many previous ones.

[BWS]

As always...

[mattpravda]

the entire reason why i made this post was to say that you shouldn't bash bush but bash the people behind bush, and the people responsible for him coming to power, because bush's incompotency is just a diversion, and an idiot like bush is expendable even though he's famous
http://www.anarchy-movement.org/
http://forum.anarchy-movement.org/

[RedSkunk]

At 5/7/04 10:14 PM, mattpravda wrote: It has been common practice for liberals to bash Bush saying that he is incopotent and that he is illiterate and that he is technichally borderline retarded. Now I'm not saying that these things aren't true, (according to what I've seen they probably are),

I stopped reading after this crap, because anyone who starts off like this, probably isn't worth reading.

For the record, he's not incopotent. (Does that mean he's sterile?)

[BUTANE]

At 5/7/04 11:50 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: So according to your logic, Downy is not infact run by a soft teddy bear, but rather some power hungry greedy shadows in the background?

That realy was funny.

[mattpravda]

I stopped reading after this crap, because anyone who starts off like this, probably isn't worth reading.

For the record, he's not incopotent. (Does that mean he's sterile?)

I meant incompotent, it was a typo, and read all of something before you criticize it.

[RedSkunk]

At 5/9/04 10:23 AM, mattpravda wrote: I meant incompotent, it was a typo, and read all of something before you criticize it.

Incompetent? mm. And I don't see why I should spend my time reading your entire post when I can tell the quality (or lack thereof) from the first two lines.