Shralp asked for a poll, Lets give him an unofficial one.

****Do Europeans think Bush is a moron or even an idiot?****

Very simple. Z-Layrex claimed that most europeans think Bush is an idiot. I beg to differ. GWB is an excellent president in my opinion. Prove me wrong fellow europeans? Vote.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 87 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Is Bush a Moron? (87 votes.)

Is Bush a Moron? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 68% (59)
* No - 6% (5)
* Non european, but still want to keep track. - 26% (23)

Just one word. Sorry.

Is he the head guy of that Amer-iiiica place? You know, the one somewhere over the ocean! I hear they have really cute people over there! *laughs moronically*

:evil:

Howard`s worse.

EDIT: Does Australia count as part of Europe ?? (We have strong political connections, even if we aren`t geograpically connected ;) )

[ August 16, 2002, 23:46: Message edited by: Lennon ]

Hmm, I voted yes, but I would have prefered a "kind of" option. I don't think he's the babbling idiot that some people try to make him... but he isn't a thinker, he's a doer. He's known for refusing to read huge reports handed to him, and instead asking for the quick summary. Then he makes a decision. Poof, just like that. Very effective, and, I guess in a sense useful when the country is at war... but I would sleep better if I knew that the man controlling the world's most powerful (and aggresive, I should add) army likes to sit down and really think things through before making a decision.

I agree, Howard is definatly worse. And he's always sucking up to Bush

Kinda disappointing this thread :D Anyway, well there is the american way to do things and there are other opinions - some may be amazed but people in europe and US disagree with Bush (or what he is told to say) for REASONS. Now there are even smartasses in the US disagreeing on what actually are the national interests of their country, also for reasons. However, reasonable reasoning about reasons involves compromise and compromise unavoidably spoils *national interest*.

That's why the US is always right in what they do and the disagreeing europeans wrong. It would be kinda funny if Bush would announce: "Yes, we are going to war in Afganistan. We have many allies ... who disagree. Of course there are other ways and we are open for discussion and so ... but we are very determined ..." I doubt the US public would regard that as signs of a potent political leadership. So he has to talk hard to gain public support.

The *whiny europeans* and the *determined US* are a sterotype evolving from that sort of zero-content babbling. The truth lies somewhere else. The point is that the US are egoistic, just like every country in the world. An altruistic country doesn't exist. But it would go kinda far to conclude from the own point of view to be right and that the others are actually wrong, especially when that right point of view is a right point of view :roll: :spin: :shake:

And yes, I doubt Bush is a really smart guy. For example because I miss some concept in what he plans for Iraq. Iraq is a relatively developed country in the region - it cannot be ignored.
So even when bringing down Iraq there must be a plan for what's going to happen when Saddam is dead. If not, the US risk something nasty happening - how about a totally instable Iraq? Another failed state like Somalia - safehaven for everyone able to pay enough? Or how about a funny little kurdish uprising in the north - to fill that vaquum left after Saddam's fall - threatening the turkish border, NATOs outer border :) And maybe another Bin Laden hiding there and maybe another afganistan war to get him in 2015. That can't be in the national US interest. Bush doesn't want a long US presence there to maintain stability. But just going there, bomb them with high tech weapons and to leave then is shortsighted.
And that are IMO good reasons to criticize the US war plans for iraq - as imprudent and incomplete and maybe to even say that the guy promoting them is a moron, plain irresponsible or a fool.

[ August 17, 2002, 14:44: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Bush is a moron with a lot of power.
I fear that Bush will try to get rid of all muslims. One country after another. And i would prefer that the muslemic religion get's a chance to evolve. The Americans are changing the religion of former Jugoslavia right now.
I don't like the muslemic religion too, which means i wouldn't marry a muslim but i wouldn't kill a muslim just because of it's religion.
How nice of Bush to send soldiers of several countries to Afghanistan, only to kill Bin Laden, destroying the whole country and afterwards claiming, the people in Afghanistan are starving because of Europe.
I will never forget the pictures of palestinians burning an american flag after September 11.. I was so shocked about that cynism. Because those palestinians where payed by reporters (50US Dollars), and they didn't knew why they should burn that flag.
No i don't have the link to proof my statement.
But i will never believe in anything Bush says. Only if he tells me he's a moron.

[ August 17, 2002, 14:20: Message edited by: Oblate ]

I rest my case... :cool:

*Ahem* Have the two of you (not Z-Layrex) even any idea of how the US executive system works? Can the two of you explain how the US simply cannot be a one man army?

From your posts, I wager, you only have a fraction of knowledge about the system, so before you begin searching the net for evidence that supports you concept of Dictator Bush and makes you sound just a little more credible, I'll give you a search word to your voyage through a more detailed presidency system. Start of with PFIAB and work your way around from there...
And please, as Ragusa nicely stated, every country is egoistic, so be careful when reading information from non-American links.

[ August 17, 2002, 15:25: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

:roll: :spin: Well, when the outlandish links are all spoiled with anti-antiericanism - isn't it likely the american links could be spoiled by patriotism and just as worthless? :roll: :spin: :square: :xx:

And we must remember that it's the Americans who started those big America aruments we had in the past.

Ragusa, you have taken your first step into a larger world. One where you actually evaluate your sources, and giving them thoughts. Fine. I am proud. At least we achieved something else that finding a way to put 8 smilies in every post.
Now the next hint must be to, if you are really interested in US foreign affairs?, find credible knowledge. Be that the internet or books or people.

EDIT; Z-Layrex you may rest your case but it is obviously not the pro Americans who are walking on thin ice. I haven't seen a lot of morons get a bachelor in Yale, a master degree in Harvard university and become a fighter pilot. Moronic? Bush has a direct common-sense and he uses it systematically in any case, yes. But with the aid of the Executive system. You would say that the system is corrupt and they let him graduate. That they carried him all the way to presidency. This inflaming rather than informing (Quote Jack Funk) from Europeans thwarting Bush here on the boards is becoming tiresome. Why not continue our charade and mindlessly mock Dictator Blair or Emperor Schröder...

[ August 17, 2002, 15:31: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

It's not that easy. Germany is a rather small country. I don't think any german politician is stupid enough to think he could rule the world.

There was a song sung by Schröder himself. With the text: "give me a bottle of beer or otherwise i'll strike here".
But we have election campaign in Germany and it's harder/more repugnant than ever. I fear that the percentage of voting decreases this year, because most of our politicians don't seem to be trustworthy. I hate it. I'll be election worker. :bang:

[ August 17, 2002, 15:59: Message edited by: Oblate ]

Well, to make a non-European input about this poll; let me tell you that an imbecile such as he is most selfevident. So much each and every human being who has heard of it actually resembles morons with him :confused: (Bush's expresion when "arsked" about 2+2)

Ah Noblemen!!! Don't go making out that i'm anti-USA!!!! I have no problems with the USA at all. I never said that they were stupid or anything!!! I just think GEORGE BUSH is an idiot!

But Z-Layrex don't you see the point? If Bush is a moron the whole process making him president is moronic. Hence those electing him too... It is impossible for one man to rule a country all by himself. Further get in power of the country in the first place!

Noblemen, yes i do think the whole darned system of America is fu**ed up. BUT, i have no problem whatsoever with actual Americans, i just dislike the American GOVERNMENT.

Ok I might be a little confused, then. :)
But many million Americans have chosen Bush as their leader. If they choose a leader who (To use your wording) has a mental capacity of someone less than ten years old, doesn't that make them foolish too?
Or were they just forced to take him as a leader/dictator? If the system is so miserable, why can't the Americans force it to be changed? Because America is really a dictatorship? or because they are politically blind?

[ August 17, 2002, 19:21: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Noblemen, yes it was a hugely foolish thing to do, but i'm not going to hold one silly act against millions of people! We all do stupid things, dosn't mean we're fools. And even if someone is a fool (which Americans arn't) that's no reason to hate them.

Is this it Z-Layrex: :)

Americans aren't fools then, so next election we figure that Bush is loosing big time?

We should give the Americans the benefit of doubt, and say that choosing Bush was the biggest political blunder, a democratic population has made in a long time, and thats it. A choice that most likely ruin the stability of the world(Since he is a moron his actions must be (wrong/bad, right?). We hold no grundge to a population who elected the man responsible for messing up the world. Only if they elect him again, or?

[ August 17, 2002, 19:48: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Ok, on the next American election. Anyone who votes for Bush is officially a fool.

I'm a fool, and I won't vote for him. Mind, I am in the UK. :bigeyes:

Nobleman, while I agree with much of what you have said, I scored higher on my SATs in my SOPHOMORE YEAR (i.e. I was 15 at the time and I got a 1230) than he did when he was 18 (1180). His mental skills have nothing to do with his acceptance and subsequent acheivements at Yale. He was a frickin' party boy, for crying out loud! BTW, NORMAL (i.e. a no-connections) person who would apply to Yale with a 1180 would have their application tarred and feathered. Stop parading him as an academic genius!

Z-Layrex,

It all depends on who's running against him.

"Who's the more foolish? The fool or the one who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi

Well, since I'm not a European, I won't vote. Wouldn't want to skew the results :p Out of interest's sake, what are the results so far? Since I'm not voting, I can't see them ;)

Heard an interesting little tidbit from a speech GW gave to a graduating class from Yale (I think it was Yale, but could be wrong). I'm paraphrasing from memory, but it went something like this: "...and to all the 'C' students here today, take heart: you too could be President."

Honestly, I don't think he's a 'moron', and I believe a lot of the quips you read here and there on the net were actually said by Dan Quail.

I don't know if the fact that someone gets elected automatically makes him (because it just never is a her in the US) intelligent, let alone appropriate for the work. That's the problem with democracy, people don't know a lot about politics, and are bound to vote for the one who simply makes a good impression, hardly ever looking beyond that and on the actual politics. After all you did elect Reagan... :D

That's the reason why you elect a person and not a party... it's about that person, and there is just no way for the public to tell whether that person will do the job well or not. So what people base their jugement on is something a bit more simple... Almost all analysts agreed that Al Gore's problem was not his politics.. he had been the vice president, that usually means a huge advantage in elections.. it was the fact that he was considered dull and uninteresting, while Bush has a certain charm, that, just to add to the flavor comes out well through the tv.

Bush rules a movie-destroying - socialist-hating(that would be me) - overweight - dumb(of a test with one hundred involved only 16 knew how many stars there where on the flag - ps. it is 50) - country that thinks that all the other countrys i mini-USA...

it is still some people that is not like that in america though... i feel sad for them... not the one on the 11 sep...

[EDIT] - i am from sweden just as you know

[ August 18, 2002, 02:37: Message edited by: Cog Primius ]

Wow I'm american and I don't think all other countries are mini-usa's. (Except for Canada :bigeyes: )

You have a clever "Non european, but still want to keep track." option in the poll so you can still see the results even if you don't vote for either. As suspected, an overwhelming majority of people consider Bush a moron.

So, Nobleman, I'm intrigued to know why *you* think GWB is "an excellent president". Did you root for him before he was elected too, or are you just impressed with his recent decisive handling of middle eastern affairs?

Personally, he strikes me as several sandwiches short of a picnic, but that's mainly because he was prone to malapropisms during his election speeches, and I suppose the stress could have made him trip over his tongue. And anyway, I don't think that intelligence is as essential to a national leader as good judgement (wisdom) and ethics. Clinton had intelligence and knowledge in spades but was lacking in the latter areas, and look how his presidency turned out.

My political leanings are mostly "republican", but I dislike the Shrub- before the election, mainly because of his record on capital punishment, and after the election, mainly because I find some aspects of the post-9/11 response excessive and trigger-happy. On the other hand, I don't think Bush is corrupt, which is a lot more than you can say for the French president and prime minister, or the Canadian prime minister. Bush really is as hard-right as he presented himself in the election, and shows every intention of fulfilling his campaign promises - whether the American people like it or not. And that kind of honesty is not a bad thing. At least people get what they vote for. "Be careful what you wish for... for you will surely get it!"

I'm intrigued by the German who posted above that no German leader would be so foolish as to try to take over the world. Do you think Hitler was a fool, or do you mean that modern Germans would know better?

Actually Frog Canada has a teeny weeny bit more land than the USA but not much.

Cog primus, are you saying that 250 MILLION people are all fat and lazy. OF COURSE! THAT'S why it's the most prosperous nation to date because they're fat and lazy! That's how they pulled themselves out of a 10 year deppresion to form the largest army in the world during the 40s in a matter of months! What a really stupid thing to say :rolleyes:

I think the new George Michael video ("Shoot the dog") describes Bush in a perfect way :) .

Here is the music video Mollusken mentioned.
http://www.nordic.mtve.com/features/cms/index.asp?id=1001000000000317&page=1&type=1

Media player and realplayer. So go enjoy. I have to admit I laughed... :1eye:

Sprite. You practically mentioned all the reasons why I think he is an excellent President. :) As far as I know the intelligent thinking is done by him AND the few hundreds of people also part of the excecutive political organ. So Actually a president needs the traits you mention even more than pure intelligence. And I do think his skill and education (perhaps not wits) is far beyond average.

[ August 18, 2002, 20:59: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

I love the fact that you are all so quick to judge!!! :rolleyes: What if Al Gore became the president?!?!?! :eek: I think you guys need to perfect YOUR government heads before you start questioning mine. :mad:

Oh yeah...Why the hell does England still have a queen?!?!? I didn't think England was a monarchy any more! :rolling:

[ August 18, 2002, 21:12: Message edited by: Kitrax ]

Bush maybe a moron, but that doesn't mean anything. Most people are having difficulty in understanding the reasons behind America's involvement in Iraq. No, it's not an obsession that is genetically inherited. Let's see what we have: 64% of world's oil comes form the middle-east. Most of it comes from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Saudi Arabia alone produces 12% of all the oil that is used around the world everyday. A report by a US agency has "appeared" in the press a couple of weeks ago, saying the Saudis hate US. While the Saudi government is in good terms with US, the Saudi people don't like the Americans at all. Now that the Saudi king is sick and that the power structure is about to change, an anti-US prince is about to claim the throne. That is quite inconvenient for US since the new king must and will bow to the pressure from the bottom. You really didn't think that US was after world peace or anything like that, right? Agriculture and energy are the dominant forces in the world. You control them you rule the world. US is the number 1 in agriculture and has the power and technology to set the prices. To control energy, US needs other means. Iraq is the perfect solution... In 1991 US and other countries who fought for the "world peace" kicks the Iraqi army's ass. So after 11 years we have an Iraqi army that lost 60% of his power and is being considered "extremely dangerous" for the region. US plays big and wins big (mostly). That has nothing to do with the president. Someone claimed that saying Bush is a moron is the same thing as saying for the americans since they elected him. Well, I ask you one thing since you seem to think that the American president embodies all of American people. Are all the americans liars , cheat on their wives and like to have interns be involved in some "patriotic" extracurricular activities? You know who I'm talking about. Probably the best American President ever, Clinton... Bush maybe a moron but the American system, in general, is almost perfect to the point where even a moronic president can't do much to harm it....

I say: "Shoot the Dog" :eek:

He was once in Bled though...

Personally, I think the most intellgent (and wise ;) ) decision GW has made since being elected is naming Colin Powell as Secretary of State.

Kitrax: Some of us Canadians *do* have problems with our Prime Minister (Mr. Cretin). But as corrupt and inept a leader as he is, does anyone outside of Canada even care? Probably not. we're just not on the world stage the way the U.S. is.

She "doesn't have any political power," silly. Just a sh*tload of moolah.

This topic has been an interesting read. For the record, I am not voting for Bush next election (I didn't vote for him this past election either, but I'm in Florida, so who knows if my vote actually got counted). Not that it matters anyway, the electoral college is the enitity that truly votes the President into office. It just so happens that they *usually* vote along the same patterns as the popular vote.

Of course, seeing as how it was between GWB or Al Gore, I think we made the smartest choice. Besides, most Europeans probably can't understand the reasons for our involvement in the Middle Eastern crisis, so the poll is somewhat meaningless imo.

But then the question is: Do most americans understand why their goverment is so involved in the middle east?

To start off my post, Im an American(for those of you who dont know), and Im 17.

To my point, I dotn think Bush is a moron, is it because Im an American and Im supposed to be patriotic? hell no, its becuase I havent personally talked to the guy, and it doesnt matter how he sounds over the T.V. or whatever, because that is something that is prepared before hand. Personally, I dont think anyone is a moron, unless I have talked to them, or had some form of conversation with the person. A few cases I make an exception to that rule, in the case of our former president, Clinton, I thought was definitely one of the biggest mistakes Americas screwy government has made, but that is my opinion, is that the whole of americas opinion, no, do I care, again, no.

Its been mentioned already, but bears repeating, why do you critisize one person(or nation) for being not perfect, when you yourself arent perfect either. Its like the "He how hasnt sinned may cast the first stone." Fact is, no one is perfect.

*And the Americans fight back!!!*

I heard a interesting quote today:
"If you had just become the president, and 9/11 just happened, you would probably do the same thing Bush is doing..."

:yot:
Again, why does England still have a queen?!?!?! :rolling:

I'll throw my hat behind the 'Bush is a moron' option. You ever actually listened to him talk when he isn't reading a card his aides wrote for him? Better yet, actually write down the words he says, then read them. They are generally real words, but often make no sense in the order he spoke them.

It also seems that Bush doesn't really understand public relations. If he did, he wouldn't go on month-long vacations everyone couple of months. About a year ago he had actually spent more time on vacation than actually in Washington.

And he isn't exactly the king of public relations, either. The other day I saw him being interviewed by the press on a golf course. He used a semblance of English to condemn the latest terrorist attacks in Israel, then abruptly got a ridiculous 'I-was-just-hit-with-a-pipe' grin on his face, swelled out his chest, and told the press gathered to "Watch this drive."

I'm just thankful that we are in a presidential system, and the President is forced into moderation by the bicameral legislature. If this were a parliamentary system, and we had a half-wit as Prime Minister, we could be screwed. Since the Prime Minister, by definition, has a majority in the legislature, he could show actual initiative and act with real power.

To defend the our actual system, let me say that I cannot think of a better one in existence. I've studied Britain's parliamentary system, France's combination presidential and parliamentary system, and various communist set-ups, and none of those seems to be as well-concieved as the US presidential system.

Parliamentary systems place all power in the legislature. Britain's citizenry have no guaranteed rights, no Bill of Rights. Theoretically, all power lies with the legislature. Parliament is bound only by tradition and election; should enough people elected decide to do something, it is law. Previous laws can be used as a basis...or not. New laws can erase the old as easily as Parliament sees fit.

France's unique combo of president and parliament is bizarre. I'm not going to get into the specifics, but let's just say the executive had better be honest. If a national emergency is declared, the president actually gets to RULE BY DECREE, a la your favorite dictator. Guess who gets to declare this state of emergency? Yup, that's right: the president.

As for communism...communism is impossible with today's flow of information, at least on a large scale. The entire system is based on fooling the populace through meaningless elections, where committees select the candidates from the only allowed party. Meanwhile, an elect group, Lenin's so-called "vanguard of the revolution," run the real show. Plus the military becomes its own force, unlike in the more democratic systems.

The United States has three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislature makes the laws, the executive carries them out, the judicial interprets them. Each can check the others, making it nigh impossible for a demagogue to take power.

I'm not explaining everything perfectly...it's late here, or rather early, and this is a lot to keep track of. If there's anything I've missed or something I've gotten wrong, please let me know.

Here is a 30 minute speech where Bush covers almost all toppics. Listen and prove(?) that he often makes no sense, like the deviant mage says...

Don't worry the link loads as he speaks. Practically no loading time.
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04bush-audio.html

Britain still has a queen because we don't want to turn into some boring no-life republic. We're a monarchy, and it rocks.

Again, why does England still have a queen?!?!?! To attract tourists and bring in money :)

Britain has a monarchy and we love it! It is there for tradition and we are the only country left (As far as I am told) with one. without it we would probably be a European country - no offence but having a monarchy sets us apart from others, alon with other things, of course ;)

8people then we are a lot of countries who should be set apart from Europe. or is your monarchy different? I think you would be better of deleting that last post, just for your reputation... :1eye:

Lol 8people get your facts right. Holland has a Royal family (the orange family) but it is not at the same status as Britains. So do many Middle-eastern 'nations'<-smirk.

Nooberman, where exactly do you think he doesn't make sense?

I don't think he doesn't make sense. . The Deviant Mage did. I just put forth the evidence and implied he didn't (or tried to). Read between the lines again. Sorry if it was confusing, Shralpadellic.

[ August 19, 2002, 17:42: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

/me puts on his facts fight helmet.

This is the stuff that doesn't make sense: "For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times."—Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002

And neither does this: "There's a lot of people in the Middle East who are desirous to get into the Mitchell process. And—but first things first. The—these terrorist acts and, you know, the responses have got to end in order for us to get the framework—the groundwork—not framework, the groundwork to discuss a framework for peace, to lay the—all right."—Referring to former Sen. George Mitchell's report on Middle East peace, Crawford, Texas, Aug. 13, 2001 (Thanks to Michael Shively.)

Thanks to SlimShogun for putting up the link to Bushisms.

I know it's evil and probably even unfair but whenever I hear and read speeches from J.W. Bush I have to think of that marvellous brainwash-scene in Zoolander ....

Oh well, I think that really goes a bit far, even for J.W. Bush, but ... *shrugs*

[ August 20, 2002, 11:03: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

So Amarica's just in it for the oil they can get out of it, who gives a **** who they kill in the process? Did I get that about right?

I personally think that Bush rdestroyed America but if they vote for him then it's good enough for me.

I think what saracman meant was that: He said that America needs to control energy and therefor has a vital interest in bringing down Iraq, means to bring war to Iraq to gain control over the oil. If I understood him rightly that also motivates america to start a war there, or as saracman said, to play big and win big.

What he overlooks is that Iraq is practically landbound - so, considering the higly armed america-hating saudi population - the US would have a hard way to get the oil out of the Iraq once the king is dead - through hostile waters in the persian gulf. I think the US motivation to fight Saddam is different, especially considering that the oil Saddam controls is actually much less than what the Saudis and Kuwaitis have. If it's for the oil, the US would be fighting the wrong country.

Additionally the importance of (and dependance from) arab oil will decrease with the exploration of the middle asian oil - so why start a war because of Saddam's limited supplies? So I actually doubt it's the oil that makes G.W. Bush dislike Saddam nor that it is an inherited aversion.

So who knows? How about another wild speculation:
Maybe the US just want to use the opportunity to use Saudi Arabia as a base to fight Iraq as long as that is still possible - as a last chance to bring down Saddam before the Saudi King dies and his country becomes anti-western. Even though a war against Iraq would be a clear agression it might be politically necessary since Saddam still doesn't care about the UN sanctions and may indeed pose a threat to stability in the region. How prudent or imprudent it may be to start a war against Saddam - G.W. Bushs clueless rhetorics don't help to convince me about the necessity of a war now.

However, don't get me wrong, I would really like to see Saddam brought down, but there needs to be a long term solution for the problem with a US presence there to maintain stability (collapse of a regime unavoidably causes instability and it can't be in anyone's interest to have instability carried out of Iraq to the neighbouring countries). The way the US plan to go to war atm - go in, kill everything in sight and to leave is unaceptable since THAT will risk to destabilize the region much more than an Iraq ruled by Saddam could. A presence of foreign forces after the war will probably be a necessity.

Since energy seems to have such a strong impact on US policy - how about an alternative approach instead of war, saracman?
How about reducing the dependence on foreign energy by using alternative sources - like solar energy by putting solar cells on the roofs, the use hydrogen as a fuel instead of oil, or by surprising the world by efficient cars made in US or even with a general reduction in the waste of energy (by excessive use of air condition and the inability to close garage doors manually and other things that characterize the american way of life?)*

That would not only reduce the dependence on foreign energy sources but reduce the ability of the arab countries to use their oil as a tool for political pressure. Protection the environment in the own country also has a strategic impact on national and international security.

:hippy: :coffee: :hippy:

* Too sad that the europeans aren't that different in that point :( however, fortunately the level of abuse is lower here.

** George, Jorge, Georg, Schorschi, Schorl ... all the same :shake: :p

[ August 20, 2002, 19:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Last year, we got 8% of our oil from Iraq. That amount is easily found from other sources, and in fact the Washington Post ran an article today detailing how US companies have already reduced the amount they get from Iraq by 9/10.

I hope you all realize that the list of Bushisms is equalled by lists of poorly phrased statements from most every other political leader. There was a particularly entertaining list of Gore-isms that circulated at about the time of the '96 elections. It's very easy to catch most public speakers stumbling over words.

Deviant Mage, your two examples prove nothing. The first is a simple statement of fact that the US and Japan have had a close alliance. I have no idea why you can't understand that. The second is simply someone stumbling over words. I find it interesting that you associate this with stupidity, as I expect you would become more than a little tongue-tied yourself if you had to be versed on a huge array of topics and then present your comments to the national media on the spur of the moment.

Oh shralp i know. Tony Blair may not be dumb but he sure as hell is annoying. Those big ears and teeth and way he talks in that high, posh accent really get to me.

[ August 20, 2002, 16:13: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Ragusa,

It's G. W. Bush (as in George). Not J. W. Bush.

Are you sure you're talking about the same person as the rest of us? :p

Ragusa asked why start a war in Iraq if America can't transport the oil? The answer is US can transport the oil via Yumurtalik pipeline (Turkey) which was closed by Turkey in accordance with the sanctions against Iraq. That really had a huge negative impact on Turkish economy. So by transporting the oil through Yumurtalik pipeline, US has the solution to both problems: transfer of oil and keeping a solid ally hapy.
The second question is why not try and develop alternative energy sources. My question is who are the biggest supporters of the Republicans? Oil companies, tobacco companies, etc. you get the idea...
I ask all who say the Europeans don't understand the American involvement in Iraq, do YOU know those reasons? Why do Americans want to send troops (mortals, against what you might believe) to Iraq? Do you know the impact of a $10 increase in oil price to the American economy? Let me tell you the answer of that one at least: about 70 billion dollars....

Once again: we get a very, very small percentage of our oil from Iraq. Something under 1% now. Oil is not the reason for attacking Iraq. Self-defense is the reason for attacking Iraq.

I completely support an attack on Iraq. What will we all do when Saddam has the power to destroy every decent nation on the planet, he dosn't care that even if he dies, as long as he can kill others, i say go get the mother****er.

[ August 21, 2002, 10:51: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Shralp, lighten up and take a look at the Bushisms. ALL of them. As I said before, I won't comment on his presidency, but the guy IS a moron when it comes to public speeches. This list illustrates that point *quite* clearly.

http://politics.slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=76886

[ August 21, 2002, 04:54: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

I think oil has a part in the US desire to confront iraq. While it's true that, at the momet, the US does not rely on Iraq for oil, that's more a result of sanctions and a preparation for war.. making sure to find the oil elsewhere, in case there is a need to attack saddam. But the political situation in the middle east is, to say the least, shaky at the moment. the US sees that former oil suppliers, such as Saudi Arabia, might not provide that oil much longer, and so the US seeks to control the oil.

The american empire is different from the roman empire in that it is not expansive. Because the USA does not NEED to expand, it control through complete trade dominance. In this case, the US does not want to take over, it simply wants control over the oil, and a safe supply. Saddam threatens that safe supply, first of all with his aggression against the US, but also against other, oil-providing neighbors. It's also risky to have Saddam in the area if a US hostile ruler would show up in, once again for example Saudi Arabia, since that would mean that the two hostile countries could cooperate.

It might seem strange that the US would need this control, but it really isn't when you realize just how dependent the US is on oil. Much more so than most european countries, since public transportation isn't as common.

And then, for other motivation, take a lot of what the President's father did. Bush senior was very, very close to bringing Saddam down when he had to pull back for diplomatic reasons. Bush junior probably wouldn't mind finishing the job.

It also so happens that the President's popularity isn't what it was just after Sept. 11. Bush senior found himself in the exact same situation before starting a war on Iraq, which brought his ratings up to great levels (I've heard 90%). There is nothing that pleases the home opinion in the US as much as a war, as long as there are no serious casualties... and just like the previous war in the Gulf, this one would mean very little risk for american troops. We will probably see another bomb war, where american planes drop their bombs from such a high altitude so Iraqi air defence units can't reach them.

However, I'm not gonna join the radicals who say that these are the ONLY reasons for a US attack. Sept. 11 made the White House realize that the USA is indeed vulnerable, and that no matter how far the enemy is geographically, they have an uncanny ability to strike when you least expect it. Saddam has been rumoured to support the Al-Quaida, even though that would be paradoxal, since his Baath party is in fact not religious, unlike for example the regime in Iran. However, those rumours have yet to be confirmed, the main concert is that Saddam might get inspired by the wtc attacks, and might want to try something similar himself.

It's obvious that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the US, but the question is if he would actually try something unprovoked. He is not stupid, and making an obvious attack on the US would be suicide. Another issue is that if Saddam has built all these chemical, biological and perhaps nuclear weapons that there is talk about, then he would definitely use them when attacked by the US. However, he might not use them unprovoked...

And there is a time factor in this. Saddam Hussein is getting old. He has no clear successor. He has not shown any real aggression since the Gulf War, except in words. Personally, I say: wait him out.

Not that I'm advocating anything, but just look to Castro to see how well waiting out a dictator works. Americans denied Cuban cigars for how long now? 30 some odd years? ;)

:bang: Shralp, there is a glaring problem with the statement made about Japan and the US. The time period that we've had this alliance is stated at 150 years. In that time, we fought a rather large war. Hell, we nuked Japan twice.

Plus we threatened them with war another time, when we first forcibly opened their islands to the West using our Navy.

That is why I cannot understand the President of the United States making such a statement. :rolleyes:

Believe it or not but nuking Japan saved thousand of people's lives. Japan would have fought to last man-woman-child. It was costing the USA HALF it's invasion force for each island, they had to show Japan that they could destroy all of it.

saracman, so now they are bringing the oil out over turkey once saddam is dead. Brilliant plan. And so easy too. Ever heared of the kurds? The pipeline passess their territory and unless turkey starts to completely change it's politic against them (just like Iraq and Iran - no one seriously wants their independence - they'd have nothing to live from anyway) there I see a problem emerging for our splendid plan and the security of the pipeline. After finishing off saddam for the sake of oil you would have to finish off the kurds for the sake of oil. Or maybe a two-in-one war - both at the same time. Or rather a buy-one-get-one-free war ... the excitement never stops!
I mean: Why not attacking Iran next: Excellent candidate - they have oil, they are evil too - and by accident your troops are around already - what more can you want? :rolleyes:

That's the thing I'm just wondering about. You cheerfully say that the US do the Iraq war for the oil and you don't find anything bad about it? I mean, the US do their way of life and the only way to satisfy the daily needs of the population is to import oil - and when they don't get it that means war for those who don't want to deliver to US conditions? Is that right?
Isn't that pretty much like going to your neighbour and forcing him at gunpoint to give you the gasoline for your joyride? Taking it further, where is then the difference between Hitler's Lebensraum, the japanese expansion in south-asia (to get *oil*) and a war against Iraq to gain control over the oil there?
Not that the US is doing politics that way, I don't at all think that, but what really strikes me is that you seem to accept that as normal saracman :toofar: Seriously, you must be nuts if you think so! :toofar:

And besides I agree with Shralp at least in one point: I really doubt it's the oil that makes G.W. Bush attack Iraq.

[ August 21, 2002, 13:10: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I'm just waiting for someone to start a thread "Is Bush a Robot?". I mean, isn't it obvious? AI is just about on his level of intelligence by now, and his facial expressions remind me of Data sometimes... Android? Borg? Here's a bone for conspiracy theoretics to chew on for the next few years. :D

(This was a joke. DON'T start a thread "Is Bush a Robot?". :shake: )

Yes but a war is stupid to kill one man. assassination would work better

I shall not pollute this topic with my conspiracy theory, you can read it at another topic:

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=002203

Ara
(Mad scientists are quite less dangerous than completely sane ones...)

Arabwel i see :confused: no theory...

[ August 21, 2002, 12:50: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Tal, if you base it on facial expressions, I was thinking more on the lines of "Is Bush a Super-Intelligent Chimp?"

SlimShogun - http://www.bushorchimp.com :)

Oh. My. God. :lol:

I don't know... Bush's tiny atomic brain realm reminds me of Kresselack's tomb, full of dead ideas :D

AHAHAHAHHAH - MY DREAMS HAVE COME TRUE!

Yes, hes not smart, and the politics sucks hard.

"Once again: we get a very, very small percentage of our oil from Iraq. Something under 1% now. Oil is not the reason for attacking Iraq. Self-defense is the reason"

Shralp! Are you bonkers!? Self defence from what? It is massivley unlikely that Iraq has anything which could be used against the US, and if they did, they are only more likely to start using it once they get invaded.

on the other hand, the Saudis hate the US, once King Fayed (?) dies, oil will have to be got from elsewhere.

Don't be so naive.

Is Bush a moron?

Hmmm.... Now there is a dificult question :rolleyes:

Of course he is!!!

Before looking at bushorchimp.com I'd have said yes, after looking at it:

DEFINITLY YES :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I would have to agree that Bush is a moron, however I also support the statement that he is an excellent president as he provides us with so much humour due to his most, ah, novel approach to the English language (creating new words such as "misunderestimate").

But I should point that oil is not only the reason for an attack on Iraq, but also for America's territorial ambitions over many middle-eastern countries (for some reason Afghanistan springs to mind), Al-Qaeda and Hussein are just very useful excuses.

Greatest idiot always leads lesser ones :D :D :D . No offence :p

How could that not offend me? You just called all 270 million Americans idiots!
:flaming:

My opinion on Bush bieng a moron is pretty much expressed in the topic What should Bush Be Like. For some reason I can't get those pictures off that Bush or monkey site. But the way I see it Slim is we are all super intelligent monkeys because I believe we evolved from the chimp. But of course that is just my theory I just don't believe the whole God creating Adam and Eve thing. No man can create humans.

Christopher Lee, you can even pick up a British newspaper and learn the answers to your questions.

"Defense from what?"

T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T A-T-T-A-C-K-S

As US, UN, and many other authorities have said, Saddam has been trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- everything from nukes to biological and chemical weapons. And he is quite capable of getting them into the US.

If you wish to start a thread on Saudi Arabia, I'll be happy to chime in with my thoughts. But your claim that I am somehow naive when I hadn't even mentioned my thoughts on the country -- well, that's a bit childish. Rock on.

What should happen if Iraq gives the UN weapons inspectors free access, and (either) they find no weapon-making program, (or) they find weapons which are then destroyed, along with the weapon-making program?

Then that is the final proof they are hiding something REALLY evil REALLY well :roll: :spin: which unfortunately is probably true.

Now that's an interesting academic exercise. Good question.

Say Sodamn Insane does actually let the UN monitor and go everyplace they want to go. They either find nothing or wipe everything out.

What comes next is ongoing monitoring. I don't remember what the period is that Iraq intially agreed to being monitored, but I reckon that should be made the minimum.

No-fly zones should be continued over northern and southern Iraq, as they seem to be the only things preventing him from killing his own people. And heck, let him get back to selling oil without the UN limits imposed now. (That's as generous as this Shralp can be.)

Shralp -

Even if he did have any of these nasties, does anyone think he would use them?

I am not standing up for Saddam hussain, I fully realise that many arguements (usually of the Left) end up having to redeem him of his evil personality in order to allow for their points against aggression to stand - do not mistake me for doing so. The world would be a safer place without him.

It may be true that the US has said that he has bio.chem weapons etc. I would not believe them. I was unaware that the UN had said the same - there is no doubt that the UN would sanction a US attack.

There is no proof that Saddam sponsered terrorist attacks, and to do anything against him on these grounds would be US unilateralism - this has no place in the world order...

Shralp! Are you bonkers!? Self defence from what? It is massivley unlikely that Iraq has anything which could be used against the US OH!!! So America's buildings and people are completely immune to a 50 ton nuke are they???!!! Get real no brain.

You fool. True, Hussein has not allowed UN inspectors to finish searching Iraq, but then again, NO NUKES HAVE BEEN found! No country is stupid enough to use nukes, especially against the US. While terrorists and terrorist groups might, do you have any idea what would happen if Iraq (AS A COUNTRY) used nukes against the US?

Is Bush a moron?

Does the sun shine?

"No country is stupid enough to use nukes"

If you make an assumption like that, you deserve what you get.

Just a few quick points:
1. Bush wasn't elected, he was APPOINTED by the same Supreme Court justices who got their jobs from his father. :eek:
2. Last time we invaded Iraq, it was two days after Neil Bush (GW's brother) destroyed the Silverado Saving & Loan via illegal speculation, leading to the S&L collapse. Coincidence? Doubt it. Furthermore, this was after our Undersecretary of State told Hussein that we wouldn't interfere if they had an "argument" with Kuwait over access to the Persian Gulf. :rolleyes:
3. Comparing Bush to a moron is insulting to morons everywhere :D

Bush was not appointed. More Supreme Court justices voted in his favor against Gore than just those his father appointed, and one that Bush Sr. appointed voted against W.

Neil Bush's problems had nothing to do with the decision to kick Iraq out of Kuwait... unless, of course, you think the entire international coalition that assembled to fight Saddam was worried about poor Neil. I doubt the Saudis had him on their mind when they signed up.

Shralp, just a quick question. Do you like Bush?

Hey, Amaster! You ever heard of M.A.D.? It stands for Mutually Assured Destructions and it happens to countries who don't realize the futility of nuclear war. And *as I stated before,* terrorists and terrorism groups are not afraid of using them, but countries who want to be around more than 47 minutes after they launch a first strike attack against the US are.

Slim, you're absolutely right about what would happen to a country using nukes on the US. the problem is people are willing to do things they know will hurt them, or even kill them. I refer you to the Cuban Missile Crisis, any of the Berlin Crises, etc. Or maybe the tensions between India/Pakistan. Or cocaine users.

I don't think it's more likely than me getting hit by 12 lightning bolts simultaneously, but if you ASSUME it will never happen, then chances are someone will notice you're not guarding against it and take advantage, much to your sorrow.

{keep in mind, saddam just has to provide the nuke to someone else to be dangerous, not neccesarily have his own people use it}

[ August 30, 2002, 07:03: Message edited by: AMaster ]

@Christopher Lee
It may be true that the US has said that he has bio.chem weapons etc. I would not believe them. I was unaware that the UN had said the same - there is no doubt that the UN would sanction a US attack. Not only does Sodomy Insane have chemical weapons, he has used them in the past. Against the Kurds in his own country and against Iran. All of this is BEFORE the Persian Gulf War.

Did all of this happen before you were born or still in diapers? If so, fine. But do a little research before you spout. You dismiss something just because the US says it is so, but accept it because the UN corroborates it (a sorry display of ignorance).

Saddams use of chemical weapons is well documented outside the US. Since any corroborating source I would provide would be from the US, you should feel free to seek out other sources.

Slim, I agree with you about MAD. The problem comes when Saddam no longer has anything to lose. This is why I feel invading Iraq is sublimely stupid: we invade, defeat the Republican Guard and anything else Saddam throws at us. Saddam realizes he cannot win, that he is going to die or be captured no matter what he does. Now, there is damn near no chance that he can launch anything capable of actually striking the United States...so he attacks someone else he hates. ISRAEL. He could deluge them with missiles with biological or chemical payloads, leaving them weakened and still surrounded by hostile nation-states (as well as damned upset with the US, I'll assure you). Worst-case scenario: Israel invaded. Absolute worst case scenario: Israel decides the only way to defend themselves is to use one weapon no Arab state could match...their nukes.

Now, this is the worst possible thing that could happen and therefore quite unlikely. But any of that happening, from the missile attacks on Israel to a panicked Israel going too far, would be catastrophic.

I agree with the deviant mage entirely. Attacking Iraq makes others targets.

And besides I agree with Shralp at least in one point: I really doubt it's the oil that makes G.W. Bush attack Iraq.Correct. What's driving this is paranoia, as evidenced in the editorials I've read recently in several magazines. Whether this paranoia is justified remains to be seen.

I voted yes.

President Bush smells of poo.
And is wife is just a great big moo.
There are better presidents in the loo.
Coo coo ca choo.

Thank you, i rest my case.

Well surly Bush has better things to do then declare war on them. I agree that Saddam should die and all but there is probably a much better way than blowing the living sh*t out of his country.

:yot:
Sprite i think Hitler had a mental disease. Something like megalomania combined with paranoid schizophrenia. He has written a book (in a prison) before he has been elected. And that book "mein Kampf" is total nonsense. As he was leader of Germany everybody had to buy that book, but only 4 or 5 % of the Germans did read that book, so nobody instead of Himmler and Göring and some others knew how ill Hitler was. This book is forbidden in Germany now, i think it's because otherwise the Neonazis might read it and get shocked by the realization that Hitler was a moron. ;)
My grandmas father called him "the painter from Austria". He wasn't german.
While he was leading this country it mutated to a Police State. As it's easier to influence children, most of them had to be members of the "Hitlerjugend". Which was organized brain washing. Adults even had to fear that there children denounce them to the police if they made a joke about Hitler or listened to foreign music.
If someone wanted to be part of the Nazisystem he had to have an "Ariernachweis". Hitler and his helpers not only killed foreigners but a lot of germans too.
And yes i hope this won't happen to us any more.
(Back to topic)
But maybe it'll happen to USA?
I wonder if the Americans have actually voted for Bush. Anyone here who voted for him?

Even if someone voted for him it's not their fault, i think he fooled us all. Whenever i saw him on TV before he ws elected he seemed perfectly normal.

I've read through everything on this thread, two things to say.
Bush is the avatar and completeness of idiocy.

How can anyone condone using an atomic bomb, seiously?

This reminds me of a novel:

"Dr. Bush and Mr. Moron"

Though I'm certain BOTH are the SAME person.

:D :D :D

Hiya! So far 52 europeans/nonamericans say that GW Bush is indeed a moron or an idiot and five say that he is not. Ok I loose the bet so far. All I can say is that Bush wins this new hair style. http://www.gotlaughs.com/funpages/mobush.cfm

Another "All I can say" is; hang in there Dude Bush. At least there can't be any sexscandals with you.

[ September 14, 2002, 03:28: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Bush is sadly far worse than a simple moron - he could well be the initiator of nuclear war. Certainly he is the most dangerous and unstable man to have run America (well at east been forefronted as running America...) in my lifetime. He wasn't even DEMOCRATICALLY voted in (dimpled chads, anyone?)...

To sum up how certainly 99% of people outside the USA (and probably at least 49% within) think of Bush - check out http://www.drparsons.fsnet.co.uk/georg.html

He talks of other countries 'oppression' and problems, bt he can't admit his own - 10% of the world population creating 90% of the polution, American Coorporations values plummetting with questionable accounting... economically the country has been even harder than physically.

America's government whines for allies to aid them in the motiveless invasion of another nation... yet in 1982 did they help the UK RECLAIM sovereign territory from the Argies? No.

I have no problem with the American people at large; I have friends there, I have worked with American colleagues and all of those I have met and known have been very optimistic friendly people. However, the people must look further than their own CNN style news to see the whole WORLDWIDE picture - the way Europe, Asia, Japan and the Middle-East...

REMEMBER, most of the mainly Islamic nations in the Middle-East are ALLIES - Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan... and Saudi Arabia (perhaps the most hardcore islamic nation in the world, increasingly moreso than Iran - which may soon have a 'liberal' overthrow). Iraq compared to these is relatively liberal! The Iraqi people at large do not deserve to die any more than the average American people.

Let's hope that Bush sticks with the UN rulings WHATEVER their decisions eventually are.

Remember, so far Saddam Hussain has played all the right media moves by saying and doing almost nothing! I have no love for him for sure, but he is certainly smarter than Bush (who isn't?)...
:rolleyes: :p :eek: :p :rolleyes:

Ah, yes, now that the sex scandals have been brought up, I remember the way the Republican party kept using the sex thing against Clinton. I never cared about that. If Bill Clinton wanted to bang an intern (and a butt-ugly one at that) in his spare time, it was *his* problem.

Now it seems George Bush Jr. wants to start a nuclear war with Saddam Hussein, and that´s *everyone´s* problem. A full scale nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Iraq would have dire consequences for the entire world! What in the hell is he thinking?

I don´t know if George W. Bush is a moron, but he sure is acting like one.

But yeah, I do agree the possibilities of there being any sex scandals with him are low to non-existant.

[ September 14, 2002, 04:34: Message edited by: hermit09 ]

I hope you will forgive me, as this is the first time I have ever posted to a topic without reading all the replies, but 115 -- sheesh.

George Bush is the president of my country, and as such should be accorded a higher level of respect than this. Is he wrong? Yes. About absolutely *everything* in life? Yes! But a *moron*? Please.

Your mama.

All of you "enlightened" liberals should really for once try making an argument without resorting to name calling. Do I mind that you disagree with Bush? Of course not, that's your right. But to call him a moron? Can you actually say for a fact that he's dumb, or are you just doing it because you don't agree with him and you don't feel like forming an actual argument?

This is why debating politics in this country is so annoying. Rather than actually debate, instead people pull out the name calling. That's why Bush is a moron, Tom DeLay is dangerous, and Colin Powell is an "Uncle Tom" (Al Gore's campaign manager actually said that!).

Why have debate when you can hurl insults like children?

But we have had a debate, its just that there was some namecalling inbetween the actual debating

:yot: :yot:

Hitler had a mental disease Hitler was gay, but that was highly taboo in those days, so he had to opress those feelings resulting in paranoia and schizophrenia.

So if anyone is gay, listen to Kooran, and we can all prevent WWIII.

BTW, maybe Bush is gay!! now that would be a scandal

[ September 15, 2002, 06:55: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

@Acragas -- I believe one of the reasons that the campaigns resorted to name-calling was because the candidates essentially agreed on most topics. That left the race one of personality...which was sad, considering the two guys involved.

...Right. I'd much rather have you militant conservatives in charge.

@Deviant

you're absolutely right. The debates sounded like "well, I think x" "I agree, and I also think y" "I agree with that, but I also think..." and on it went. They didn't want to take stands on issues, because that might offend people. Maybe they should look at Jesse Ventura.

The Body 4 Prez! ;)

'George Bush is the president of my country, and as such should be accorded a higher level of respect than this. Is he wrong? Yes. About absolutely *everything* in life? Yes! But a *moron*? Please.' says Metheny.

Indeed - calling Bush a Moron is an insult to Moron's everywhere!

Outside the USA, especially in Europe, he is seen as a Megolomaniac Warmonger... have you seen the classic movie Dr Strangelove? He is like the mad base commander guy who thinks the Ruskies put Fluoride in water to control our minds...

The world's lives lie in the hands of this puppet to the Extreme American Rightwing... Yikes! :rolleyes:

Bush was born on 3rd base and thought he hit a triple.

Bush IS a moron... Plain and simple... Get used to it... AND... Be wary

P.S.:

He reminds me of the Pit Fiend you summon in BG2... not even close to smart... but with enough firepower to decimate an entire country quickly... and willingly.

[ September 15, 2002, 22:04: Message edited by: Shadowhunter ]

:lol:

A pit fiend - but of course! And I tried to remember where I saw that face before... :1eye:

I did not vote for him. In fact, I cringed when I found out he was the new President
With his actions lately, I feel my feelings are justified. I really don't want to find out what biological warfare is like. I fear, however, that if Bush continues in his current path, I'll find out anyway.

Having just studied his life in Political Science, I'd say we need another Grover Cleveland right now. Cleveland was probably the best president we've had in over a century: he was honest, honorable, and didn't back down from anyone -- including his fellow American politicians. When it was discovered that he may have fathered a child with a prostitute, he didn't try to cover it up or lie his way out. He told the American people that he very well may have, though it could have been any one of a dozen men, and payed child support for the rest of the kid's life. When greedy capitalists and politicians tried to steal Hawaii from under the collective nose of its natives, Cleveland stopped them in their tracks and kicked the annexation bill out of the White House (although Hawaii ended up being annexed anyway after he left). Through and through, Cleveland was an honorable, decent man. Only problem was, he wasn't a politician.

Still, we need him now. I think the closest modern-day incarnation of him we have is Gov. Jesse Ventura. I agree AMaster -- the Body for Prez! Assuming the U.S. survives until the next election, that is :p

I agree. Cleveland was such a great President, that we named a muppet after him.

But with today's Presidents I think the muppets and comic strip characters of tomorrow are doomed.

Well, I recall both Bushes (Dana Carvey and "folks round here call me Dubya") being members of the secret society "Skull and Bones" (frikkin' History Channel buff right here!). Believe me, it's true! His code name is "the replacement" :eek: . I mean, these totally unknown folks (to us) meet and say "I think this law should be passed," and the next day...plinko! law passed.

Maybe they're the driving force behind this whole "let's get Iraq's oil thing, global power for America (right on!), yadda, yadda"... All right, but, anyway, that's my two rambling bits. The whole secret society thing really irks me, for one.....heh, I'm not lying about this stuff!! You wouldn't believe what goes on around our (allegedly "our") government (and over and under). Quit looking at me like I'm crazy, too. :rolleyes: