GW Bush, John Kerry and Cheney are captured by terrorists.....they are told that they will each be blind-folded and shot by firing squad. First Cheny is up....ready, aim...Suddenly Cheny yells out Earthquake! the terrorist scatter and Cheney escapes! Next after things settle down they line Bush up in thier sights.....Ready, aim....and suddenly Bush yells out....TORNADO!...the terrorists scatter and he escapes..next up is Kerry. As they point thier guns at him.....Ready, Aim.... Suddenly Kerry yells out....FIRE! :)

GW Bush, John Kerry and Cheney are captured by terrorists.....they are told that they will each be blind-folded and shot by firing squad. First Cheny is up....ready, aim...Suddenly Cheny yells out Earthquake! the terrorist scatter and Cheney escapes! Next after things settle down they line Bush up in thier sights.....Ready, aim....and suddenly Bush yells out....TORNADO!...the terrorists scatter and he escapes..next up is Kerry. As they point thier guns at him.....Ready, Aim.... Suddenly Kerry yells out....FIRE! :)

http://www.tougewo-koete.jp/mental/Bomb.gif

I always told this joke as an "Englishman, Scotsman & Irishman" version - I suggest it would work better told as Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush - the more true-to-life you get these things, the funnier they are ;)

I always told this joke as an "Englishman, Scotsman & Irishman" version - I suggest it would work better told as Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush - the more true-to-life you get these things, the funnier they are ;)




Oh of course, nothing but republicans, even though an idiot like John Edwards would be a perfect fit in for that joke.  (Dam* I can't wait for the VP debate.)  But maybe it would work, because terrorists want democrats in control and republicans out.

10 out of 10 terrorists agree....Anybody but Bush.

Oh of course, nothing but republicans, even though an idiot like John Edwards would be a perfect fit in for that joke.  (Dam* I can't wait for the VP debate.)  But maybe it would work, because terrorists want democrats in control and republicans out.

10 out of 10 terrorists agree....Anybody but Bush.



So, where have you heard this? Have you met any terrorists that told you that they don't want to keep Bush? I highly doubt that. In fact, IMO, I think that terrorists WANT Bush to stay in power-because he is doing such a great job to recruit more terrorists to their cause.



Cat

So, where have you heard this? Have you met any terrorists that told you that they don't want to keep Bush? I highly doubt that. In fact, IMO, I think that terrorists WANT Bush to stay in power-because he is doing such a great job to recruit more terrorists to their cause.



Cat


First off our government has already show a decline in terrorism, especially Al Qaeda which is the main group we were after.  When we started, Al Qaeda had an estimated 20,000 members, now after 3 years of killing them off, their estimated numbers are at 18,000.  Not a big decrease, but thier is 2,000 less terrorists out there trying to kill us (and thats only counting Al Qaeda.)

That liberal talking point, the one that says ''Bush actions have helped recruit terrorists'' cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form.  Nothing shows that, yet a lot of liberals say that same stupid line after 8 years of proven increases in terrorists training camps under former President Clinton.  Need I remind everyone (even though I already did in another thread) of all the terror attacks under former President Clinton compared to President Bush.

First off our government has already show a decline in terrorism, especially Al Qaeda which is the main group we were after.  When we started, Al Qaeda had an estimated 20,000 members, now after 3 years of killing them off, their estimated numbers are at 18,000.  Not a big decrease, but thier is 2,000 less terrorists out there trying to kill us (and thats only counting Al Qaeda.)

That liberal talking point, the one that says ''Bush actions have helped recruit terrorists'' cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form.  Nothing shows that, yet a lot of liberals say that same stupid line after 8 years of proven increases in terrorists training camps under former President Clinton.  Need I remind everyone (even though I already did in another thread) of all the terror attacks under former President Clinton compared to President Bush.


Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  We killed or captured 2000 terrorists in three years!!!!  I'm impressed.  But all we have to do is look at Iraq to jsee the increase in terrorist groups among Iraqis, and the increase in the number of guerrilla fighters there.  And I wonder where you get this info re increasing # of terrorist training camps under Clinton?  According to Richard Clarke, Clinton did much to thwart terrorism using covert ops, which one doesn't make public (unless you happen to be Bob Novak and get away with a Federal offence).

And it is funnier with Rummy, Chaney, and Bush.  He showed us last thrusday what an idiot he is, and by the way, who was it that was sweating?

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  We killed or captured 2000 terrorists in three years!!!!  I'm impressed.  But all we have to do is look at Iraq to jsee the increase in terrorist groups among Iraqis, and the increase in the number of guerrilla fighters there.  And I wonder where you get this info re increasing # of terrorist training camps under Clinton?  According to Richard Clarke, Clinton did much to thwart terrorism using covert ops, which one doesn't make public (unless you happen to be Bob Novak and get away with a Federal offence).

And it is funnier with Rummy, Chaney, and Bush.  He showed us last thrusday what an idiot he is, and by the way, who was it that was sweating?


Bush showed us he was the idiot?  What debate were you watching?  It was just like the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960.  The people back then who listened on the radio said Nixon won, the people who watched on television said Kennedy won.  Same with last week's debate, if style is your thing, yeah sure Kerry won.  But if you prefer a real plan, with substance, I think Bush is your guy.

Personally I don't think Clarke is worth even giving the time of day to.  My favorite review of his book comes from The Weekly Standard, my favorite conservative magazine:

''Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, by Richard Clarke.  It's payback time for former national coordinator for counterterrorism Clarke, angry because he was demoted by Condi Rice.  Clarke decides to grab the big bucks by blaming 9/11 on the fledgling, seven-month old Bush Administration, not the Clinton Administration, which for eight years had virtually ignored over a half-dozen terrorists attacks, such as the bombing of the USS Cole.  This was after Clarke had praised George Bush effusively in 2002.  Oh, and as for Clarke's appearance on CBS's ''60 Minutes'': it must be a simple coincidence that CBS and Simon & Schuster (Clarke's publisher) are both owned by Viacom.  And that Clarke's book release was precisely timed just as the 9/11 hearings were underway.''
 
Clinton got away with lying under oath, something a normal person would have gotten five years in jail for.  Just thought I'd throw that in what with people talking about Bob Novak.

And finally I end with a favor to ask.  Could you please spell Cheney's name correctly?  I mean, doesn't the Vice President of the United States of America deserve at least that?

Gee, I'd like to know how "they" get these estimates?  How does anybody "know" how many are out there (past or present)?  Or, how many have been killed, for that matter?  I mean, it's not like they wear signs that say "AQ".  If anything, our actions in Iraq have forced them deeper underground, thus making it harder to identify them.

And, if terrorism is "down" as you say, why are there still bombings in Iraq?  Almost every day, when I pick up the newspaper, there is another car bombing or the like.  Doesn't seem to me that terrorism is "down", IMO, it's on the rise ::)


Terrorism is down, in America, and that is where it counts.  Iraq has no new terrorists.  It has been shown that the increase in terrorism in Iraq comes from terrorists from surrounding countries pouring across the boarder into Iraq.  We know that, they are not new recruits, but instead old terrorists from new countries.

I really didn't hear as much substantial planning come from Bush as much as I heard the same rehashing of the same Republican talking-points and the same tripe that the right-wing has worked so hard to fashion as conventional wisdom. I did, however, see Kerry's display of his lingual superiority to Bush and his reconciliation with the American public re: his alleged 'flip-flopping.'

Also, saying that this debate hearkens back to the old Nixon - Kennedy debate where viewers sided with Kennedy and listeners sided with Nixon, is so typical of the right wing propaganda machine.

It's a tried and true technique where if one miniscule connection can be made between one thing and another, magically the public perceives them to be identical. It's just like in earlier months when the RWPM (right wing propaganda machine) tried to somehow link Kerry with Dukakis... "Kerry reminds us of another Massachesetts Senator: Michael Dukakis, who was a LOSER, and blah blah blah." But what was the only real connection between the two men? They are both Senators from Massachusetts. That's all. But that's not the important thing. The important thing is to suggest one similarity between the two and then, biggoty-bam, John Q. Public suspects history to repeat itself. I mean, history MUST repeat itself, right?... That is a proverb, for god's sake!!!

No, GWB I'm not basing my judgement of appearances, but you have made a big deal of sweat and socker ball on other threads.  Kerry won because he was more forceful and more articulate than your Lil Georgie.  I was watching C-Span, and noticed, by the way, that Bush got the bigger section of the split screen, it wasn't 50/50.  But I understand that Fox was doing the photography, so no wonder.   In any case, Media Bias?

Also, saying that this debate hearkens back to the old Nixon - Kennedy debate where viewers sided with Kennedy and listeners sided with Nixon, is so typical of the right wing propaganda machine.



Right-wing propaganda machine?  That has to be the most idiotic statement yet.  First of all, why would we even be trying to say Nixon won NOW, its 2004, why would republicans today care that Kennedy won a debate and an election back in 1960?  Besides, their was no spin to that statement, I suggest you crack a history book once in a while, because almost every one of them says what I said.  But let me guess.  The Right-wing propaganda machine controls all the history books, and tells people what to do in order to make people vote republican?  Paranoid is all I can say.  Every poll and survey conducted after the 1960 debate found that the majority of radio listeners said Nixon won, while the majority of television viewers said Kennedy won.  Thats all.  I don't know why, but I assume its the style thing that the democrats go crazy over.  Either way, I'm glad you're a liberal, the few conservatives here don't need statements like that.

Right-wing propaganda machine?  That has to be the most idiotic statement yet.  First of all, why would we even be trying to say Nixon won NOW, its 2004, why would republicans today care that Kennedy won a debate and an election back in 1960?  Besides, their was no spin to that statement, I suggest you crack a history book once in a while, because almost every one of them says what I said.  But let me guess.  The Right-wing propaganda machine controls all the history books, and tells people what to do in order to make people vote republican?  Paranoid is all I can say.  Every poll and survey conducted after the 1960 debate found that the majority of radio listeners said Nixon won, while the majority of television viewers said Kennedy won.  Thats all.  I don't know why, but I assume its the style thing that the democrats go crazy over.  Either way, I'm glad you're a liberal, the few conservatives here don't need statements like that.


As I recall, it was you who brought up the histrical debates, so now you say "who cares"?.  If they are unimportant, than why did  you bring them up? 

But then, I guess you are just so in tuned to your right wing political peopoganda that any diversion is not just ok, but beyond your comprehension. 

Talk to us about the 100's of thousands of lost jobs, the declining real income of the middle class, the enormous budget deficit, the degredation of the emvironment, and so many other calamities.  Own up to your boy's record.

And in terms of reading history. I "are" a historian with a Ph.D.  I read and  write history for a  living.  What history, exactly, do you suggest we read?  What I read, of the most prestigious historians, suggests that you don't know your nether regions from your elbow when it comes to history.  I susspect that my freshmen know more history than you.  Prove me wrong.

I just think it's most amusing how the right-wing talking points guys set up a win-win situation.  Before the debates they were anticipating something of a Bush-Gore match up.  Bush would look better.  He'd score points for body language and regular guy-ism.  Thus they were saying to watch the debate with sound turned down and whoever looks better will win.  They were saying presentation matters as much as rhetoric.  And, as Joe Sourdough said, "in middle America, what you say is more important than how you say it."  Scarborough was referring to Bush's notorious ineloquence.
So, Bush blew it on presentation.  Now they're arguing the opposite.  They're trying to say not to get caught up with image and that Bush won on substance.  Talk about a flip-flop! 
Their problem is even partisan lickspittles such as Jonah Goldberg of the "National Review" immediately assigned total victory to Kerry.  It was as if they KNEW it would never be plausible to suggest Bush won. 
Unfortunately, the other right-wing pundits couldn't leave well enough alone.  Within 24 hours they were out there making excuses for Bush.
I wish they'd stop worrying.  It WILL be Bush taking the oaf of office on Inauguration Day.


Oh the JOKE would work with Clinton, Kerry, and then Gore being the one who yells "Fire," if you wanted to use Democrats.  It's still a corny old chestnut, IMHO.

It WILL be Bush taking the oaf of office on Inauguration Day.




I thought he WAS the "oaf" of office.  :D ;)




Cat

Don't you mean IS :D ;D



Yup-you are right. I guess I was thinking of Inauguration Day when (I hope) it will be "WAS"  ;)




Cat

I thought he WAS the "oaf" of office.  :D ;)




Cat


Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot.

But seriously folks...Above GWB asked if the right wing propoganda machine controlls the content of history books.  I responded (sort of) with reference to university and independent press books aimed at college level and professional readers.  As to high school texts (what GWB probably relies on) the answer is that the Texas school board (that bastion of liberal secular humanism) has a huge influence on the content of all text books because they control such a large market.

Right-wing propaganda machine?  That has to be the most idiotic statement yet.  First of all, why would we even be trying to say Nixon won NOW, its 2004, why would republicans today care that Kennedy won a debate and an election back in 1960?  Besides, their was no spin to that statement, I suggest you crack a history book once in a while, because almost every one of them says what I said.  But let me guess.  The Right-wing propaganda machine controls all the history books, and tells people what to do in order to make people vote republican?  Paranoid is all I can say.  Every poll and survey conducted after the 1960 debate found that the majority of radio listeners said Nixon won, while the majority of television viewers said Kennedy won.  Thats all.  I don't know why, but I assume its the style thing that the democrats go crazy over.  Either way, I'm glad you're a liberal, the few conservatives here don't need statements like that.


I am not disputing your claims about radio listeners back in the 60s thinking Nixon had won that debate. I know that's true. I am challenging your statement "It was just like the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960." I don't believe that the two debates have anything to do with eachother at all, and if in fact radio listeners of Thursday's debate sided more with Bush (something I'd like to see proof of) then it is what it is.... a miniscule similarity between two historical events. The two debates were not *just alike*.  I suggest here that you are using a common technique, where a small correlation is made between two things and as a result, people falsely conclude that the two things are identical. I then gave a specific example of this technique being used during this campaign year. This has nothing to do with lack of historical knowledge on my part. And as for the RWPM, I'm sure Max can set you straighter than I can on that.

And I'm sure all the history books today are indeed making the same correlation you did.... that is, if they were printed sometime between last Thursday and today....