← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · AntiYuppie
Thread ID: 17068 | Posts: 42 | Started: 2005-03-02
2005-03-02 17:49 | User Profile
Given the discussions on some other threads whether Bush's foreign policy is driven by corrupt neocon handlers (with Bush himself a naive, unwitting tool of their guile), vs. Bush himself being part and parcel to the neocon worldview, I thought that a poll on the subject would be timely.
Basically, is George W. Bush simply a real life Chauncey Gardiner, a good natured but dim man-child who has fallen under the influence of the wrong people (as Buchanan would have us believe, and as I thought until recently), or is Bush, for all his mental shortcomings, as corrupt and craven as the people he surrounds himself with (i.e. Dick Cheney with a lower IQ)?
2005-03-02 18:15 | User Profile
AY,
The third choice. I have grown so cynical about this man that I have serious doubts about his Christianity. I suspect he uses this in the same way Clinton used lower lip biting. It works with the emotionally driven who are incapable of critical thought. I [U]am[/U] convinced of this, though. Bush has been an excellent understudy to Clinton when it comes to lying, corruption and secrecy.
2005-03-02 18:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]AY,
The third choice. I have grown so cynical about this man that I have serious doubts about his Christianity. I suspect he uses this in the same way Clinton used lower lip biting. It works with the emotionally driven who are incapable of critical thought. I [U]am[/U] convinced of this, though. Bush has been an excellent understudy to Clinton when it comes to lying, corruption and secrecy.[/QUOTE]
The Bush administration has been more secretive than the Clinton administration overall. Clinton's entourage had a very high turnover rate, and he always brought in temporary advisors of various sorts, while Shrub has a very tight inner circle of handlers who coordinate his every move and filter out information going in both directions. People have a better idea of the lies and corruption that went on under Clinton because he and his circle weren't nearly as good at keeping a lid on things and covering up their tracks as Bush's handlers have been.
Just compare the relative low-level sleaze of a Carville with a true master manipulator like Karl Rove and you'll get the picture.
I have grown so cynical about this man that I have serious doubts about his Christianity. I suspect he uses this in the same way Clinton used lower lip biting
I am undecided about Shrub's religiosity. There are two possibilities, neither of which are very encouraging. One is that he's cynically exploiting religiosity to bamboozle his constituency into thinking that he's honest and sincere. The other is that he genuinely believes that he talks to God and that God tells him to wage war in the Middle East. In that case, he isn't cynical and manipulative, he's genuinely mentally ill (either that or someone has yet to tell him that Paul Wolfowitz is not "God").
2005-03-02 18:37 | User Profile
I think he's a corrupt hack. He's definitely not "stupid", no way not a chance (read Sailer on GWB's test scores....Sailer puts his IQ at the 95% percentile)
Growing up in that family and exposed to all he was, he's definitely not a useful idiot. While he's a tool for others, certainly, he's not clueless as to what the score is. I don't believe any of those guys are really that stupid.
He does what he's told - but not b/c he's fooled into doing so. He knows the score.
2005-03-02 18:37 | User Profile
If he is nothing more than a cynic then it is possible that he might see the errors of his ways, if for any reason, to avoid being known as the gravedigger of America. If he is a religious fanatic then we are in real trouble for people like that are not to be reasoned with. I hope this fool realizes that he isn't Joan of Arc.
2005-03-02 19:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]If he is nothing more than a cynic then it is possible that he might see the errors of his ways, if for any reason, to avoid being known as the gravedigger of America. If he is a religious fanatic then we are in real trouble for people like that are not to be reasoned with. I hope this fool realizes that he isn't Joan of Arc.[/QUOTE]I don't think he is a religious fanatic. Especially in relation to the "war on terror", I think he only uses religion in an attempt to bring some of the more conservative sheeple on board. Some of those around him are, however.
And though I do like to joke about Bush being stupid, since it is just so easy, I don't really think he is at all. He is not truly a useful idiot, or anyone's puppet, whether that be the Zionists or whoever else. Just like the vast majority of politicians he may be led to do things he might not neccessarily think are correct by considering the most important thing, what is in it for them.
2005-03-03 01:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]I think he's a corrupt hack. He's definitely not "stupid", no way not a chance (read Sailer on GWB's test scores....Sailer puts his IQ at the 95% percentile)
Growing up in that family and exposed to all he was, he's definitely not a useful idiot. While he's a tool for others, certainly, he's not clueless as to what the score is. I don't believe any of those guys are really that stupid.
He does what he's told - but not b/c he's fooled into doing so. He knows the score.[/QUOTE]I read this nonsense by Sailer in TAC (he and Chas. Murray-- a senior fellow at the uber-Zionist AEI and a history/sociology major who got an F in Linear Algebra in grad school and subsequently took no more math courses). Look, it is hard to believe George W. Bush is not mentally retarded. He sounds like a moron, he doesn't know much, those who know him say he's "not intellectually curious", but hey, don't judge a book by its contents, right?
I know PJB thinks he a moron. Pat makes it clear time and time again, and everyone misses Pat's subtle message and accuse him of letting Junior off the hook. Come on, Pat all but calls the neo-cons scheming disciples of the Antichrist, yet then says Junior is sincere and well-intentioned. I don't know how much more obvious PJB could make it that he thinks Junior is merely a stupid stooge manipulated by a cabal of cunning Yids who do not have America's best interest at heart.
2005-03-03 01:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Jack Cassidy] Look, it is hard to believe George W. Bush is not mentally retarded. He sounds like a moron, he doesn't know much, those who know him say he's "not intellectually curious", but hey, don't judge a book by its contents, right?[/QUOTE]LOL. My impression of Bush is just that he lacks charisma and that he simply, is a horrible public speaker, and these things are obviously huge drawbacks to a political figure. I also think in his college days he was probably more concerned about partying then he was about his studies. Also, he is basically a jack-ass who thinks he knows it all and that is why he doesn't feel any need to be "intellectually curious." But stupid? no.
[QUOTE] know PJB thinks he a moron. Pat makes it clear time and time again, and everyone misses Pat's subtle message and accuse him of letting Junior off the hook. Come on, Pat all but calls the neo-cons scheming disciples of the Antichrist, yet then says Junior is sincere and well-intentioned. I don't know how much more obvious PJB could make it that he thinks Junior is merely a stupid stooge manipulated by a cabal of cunning Yids who do not have America's best interest at heart.[/QUOTE]I think the problem with Pat Buchanan is that even though he knows the score on many things, he still doesn't want to completely believe it. He wants to instead believe certain politicians are not themselves corrupt, especially on the "republican" side, and he feels the need to make excuses for them, as much for his own benefit as others.
2005-03-03 02:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr][QUOTE]LOL. My impression of Bush is just that he lacks charisma and that he simply, is a horrible public speaker, and these things are obviously huge drawbacks to a political figure. I also think in his college days he was probably more concerned about partying then he was about his studies. Also, he is basically a jack-ass who thinks he knows it all and that is why he doesn't feel any need to be "intellectually curious." But stupid? no. [/QUOTE]I've taken biology exams while tripping on magic mushrooms ("shroomin'"), physics exams after smoking a few joints, and mathematical logic exams majorly hungover. I was still able to get out graduating cum laude. Granted, it wasn't Yale, but not far below, IMO. Junior got out with barely C's. His intellectual superior, Dick Cheney, was suspended from Yale for poor academic performance (too many F's). He redoubld his efforts, went back to Yale, and was then expelled for poor academic performance (too many F's). These are the guys running this country? No, unfortunately they aren't, they are merely the useful goyim stooges.
2005-03-03 03:26 | User Profile
As far as Bush's intelligence goes, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time. I thought he was just a poor public speaker, probably not intellectually curious, and not very well-read. Eventually, though, I had to accept that the man is just not very bright. Watch him. Sometimes it is simply painfully obvious as the gears slowly turn in his head. In the Washington Post (or was it Times?) about a month ago, they ran an interview in which they asked Bush the following:
Post -- It has been over 3 years since 911. Why do you think Osama bin Laden still has not been caught? Bush -- Because he's hiding. :yes:
As for the poll question -- I think he is a corrupt schemer who is simultaneously being used by more intelligent corrupt schemers behind the scenes.
2005-03-03 03:48 | User Profile
You can't fault a guy for not being a genius. But, what bothers me about El Bush is his obvious lack of interest in even appearing/sounding intelligent. It's as if he doesn't give a crap that he sounds like a complete moron. It's a sign, I think, of his arrogance. Which, coupled with his level of intelligence, is a pretty dangerous combination.
2005-03-03 04:17 | User Profile
From time to time I've wondered whether he is addicted to something a little stronger than cocaine or alcohol. It's a remote possibility, but some of his personality traits, particularly his mannerisms during the first debate with Kerry remind me of a coworker who had a methampthetamine addiction. His irritability, the way he flits from one subject to another as if growing bored of the first after 10 seconds, his impatience with people who don't see things his way immediately after a moment's persuasion, and his bizarre facial expressions all seem eerily familiar. And of course there's all the hubris and madness of his foreign policy.
It's possible that something like that would be studiously covered up by those in the know, and it's not without precedent either (Anthony Eden and Adolf Hitler are two examples). It's also not uncommon for entertainers and public speakers to take a little nose sherbet before a public performance. There were a few politicians in the UK who admitted taking speed before giving speeches in the House of Commons a few years ago, if memory serves me correctly.
Like I say, it's probably not likely, but I would love to be proven right :)
P.S. There's a great BBC series about drug use amongst political leaders called "Altered Statesmen" that's worth a watch if you get the chance.
2005-03-03 05:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]LOL. My impression of Bush is just that he lacks charisma and that he simply, is a horrible public speaker, and these things are obviously huge drawbacks to a political figure. I also think in his college days he was probably more concerned about partying then he was about his studies. Also, he is basically a jack-ass who thinks he knows it all and that is why he doesn't feel any need to be "intellectually curious." But stupid? no. Well its true about his partying. After all he graduated with about a 2.0 something at Yale didn't he.
Bush isn't dumb, he's just your typical rich kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Plus, growing up in Texas, I think he cultivated that "good ole boy" persona, to try and hide his basic New England snobbishness and arrogance toward dumb country folk.
In any event his basic lack of drive makes him prime fodder for the neocons manipulation. Whatever you say about them they do have an agenda, its coherent, politically vetted and kosher (in the vulgar as well as ethnic sense of the term) ,accepted as conservative, and still acceptable among the elites. For a lazy man like him who doesn't like to think, its easier just to accept the whole thing.
Unlike his daddy, who did accomplish some things on his own and stand up on his own two feet occasionally. Which is why a lot of the neocons ended up supporting Clinton. (How short memories the G.O.P. establishment has)
Its intereting along these lines how similar his personal profile is to McCain's. Obviously these two dupes were selected in 2000 because of their complete tractability to the neocons.
I think the problem with Pat Buchanan is that even though he knows the score on many things, he still doesn't want to completely believe it. He wants to instead believe certain politicians are not themselves corrupt, especially on the "republican" side, and he feels the need to make excuses for them, as much for his own benefit as others.[/QUOTE]I just think Pat's political career is over, and he lacks the drive he once had.
And he might be right in a certain sense - there are worse Presidents we could have. Look again for instance at McCain.
2005-03-03 05:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]AY,
The third choice. I have grown so cynical about this man that I have serious doubts about his Christianity. I suspect he uses this in the same way Clinton used lower lip biting. It works with the emotionally driven who are incapable of critical thought.
We had an interesting article on this.[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15406&highlight=Bush+Church]Why W. Doesn't Go To Church - The Empty Pew[/URL]
I [U]am[/U] convinced of this, though. Bush has been an excellent understudy to Clinton when it comes to lying, corruption and secrecy.[/QUOTE]I can see one thing he's learned already - the same contempt for the electorate and the same "stonewall" "stonewall" attitude.
2005-03-03 06:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]From time to time I've wondered whether he is addicted to something a little stronger than cocaine or alcohol. It's a remote possibility, but some of his personality traits, particularly his mannerisms during the first debate with Kerry remind me of a coworker who had a methampthetamine addiction. His irritability, the way he flits from one subject to another as if growing bored of the first after 10 seconds, his impatience with people who don't see things his way immediately after a moment's persuasion, and his bizarre facial expressions all seem eerily familiar. And of course there's all the hubris and madness of his foreign policy.[/QUOTE]Since W's younger brother Jeb is clearly highly intelligent, and according to Steve Sailer W's SAT score puts him in the upper 95 percentile, perhaps the excessive drug and alcohol use caused a sort of brain atrophy/damage in W? His madness in foreign policy might be attributed to the neo-cons around him in combination with his reckless, addictive personality.
2005-03-03 06:07 | User Profile
The presidency of the US is largely an irrelevant postion in the grand scheme of things. He is just a cutout cardboard figure who fronts for the evil oligarchy of WASP old money and Zionist new money that runs the US as a joint stock company. His old man made a few phone calls and got him the job, its really all not that complicated. Guys like David Rockefeller, George Soros and the men on the Federal Reserve have a lot more power than this pathetic Texas preppy.
I have no idea if Bush is a Christian or not. I think it rather unlikely that he is one, but you never know. If I were his pastor I would insist that he rennounce his membership in the Skull and Bones satanic cult.
2005-03-03 08:20 | User Profile
Any intelligence or depth Bush evinces is a lacquer-shiny surface patina on a very shallow pool. People who argue against this point of view are in denial that the Bush family believes in the divine right of kings, and [I]expects [/I] the order of succession to proceed accordingly. Look for Jeb to emerge in '08, certainly by '12, as they keep the cushion warm for the beaner nephew.
Put me down for "DUMMY, BUT EAGER TO PLAY BALL".
2005-03-03 17:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]As far as Bush's intelligence goes, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time. I thought he was just a poor public speaker, probably not intellectually curious, and not very well-read. Eventually, though, I had to accept that the man is just not very bright. Watch him. Sometimes it is simply painfully obvious as the gears slowly turn in his head. In the Washington Post (or was it Times?) about a month ago, they ran an interview in which they asked Bush the following:
Post -- It has been over 3 years since 911. Why do you think Osama bin Laden still has not been caught? Bush -- Because he's hiding. :yes:
As for the poll question -- I think he is a corrupt schemer who is simultaneously being used by more intelligent corrupt schemers behind the scenes.[/QUOTE]
You can usually tell the difference between somebody who is inarticulate and somebody who is unintelligent. For instance, GW's father would often trip over his tongue and was not a very effective public speaker, but it was clear that he usually knew what he was talking about and wasn't stupid as such. Junior, on the other hand, doesn't just trip over his tongue. Whenever he's asked a question that he wasn't prepped for by his handlers, he literally doesn't know what to say not because he's inarticulate, but because it's obvious his mind can't piece together a passable impromptu answer. And when Shrub is prepped, it's painfully obvious that he often memorizes and mouths words without understanding their content. When reading a speech prepared by his handlers, GW sounds like an elementary school kid reciting Shakespeare or the Declaration of Independence - the sound patterns for the words are memorized, but the content is lost on him.
The real question is not whether Shrub is unintelligent or not, but whether he is so unintelligent that he doesn't understand what the motives of the people he surrounds himself might be, and whether he bears ultimate responsibility for what goes on in his administration. Even a mediocre or below-average mind can still be honest and incorruptible, in his case we get the worst of both worlds.
2005-03-03 18:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]AY,
The third choice. I have grown so cynical about this man that I have serious doubts about his Christianity. I suspect he uses this in the same way Clinton used lower lip biting. It works with the emotionally driven who are incapable of critical thought. I [U]am[/U] convinced of this, though. Bush has been an excellent understudy to Clinton when it comes to lying, corruption and secrecy.[/QUOTE]
This WND article seems to cast more doubt on W's Christian commitment. It also hints at the deeply-rooted homosexual influence within the Republican leadership that goes back to HW and before, and shows perhaps the beginnings of W's manic dreams of Napoleonic glory. Wead's tapes almost immediately disappeared; so much for the opposition.
I've seen enough of Bush's type within the Southern Baptist church to recognize the type. His words, speech patterns and manner echo some of the smoother shysters on the "revival" circuit and in SB leadership. It's always a surprise to me that folks outside the SB sphere of influence (or, to be specific, those that have not grown up in it and ultimately rejected it) don't recognize Bush's duplicity and tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, but Bush is one well-trained and practiced political professional.
[url]http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42946[/url]
The secret George W. Bush tapes revealed Former evangelical adviser covertly recorded conversations
Posted: February 19, 2005 6:05 p.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah é 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON ââ¬â Is it the revenge of Doug Wead? Or is it the self-immolation of Doug Wead.
[B]Wead was an influential evangelical adviser to President George H.W. Bush until 1990 when he got the unceremonious heave-ho from Andrew Card, who told him to leave "sooner rather than later" for sending conservatives a letter faulting the White House for inviting homosexual activists to an event. [/B]
Beginning two years before George W. Bush took over the White House in 2000, Wead consulted with the candidate on ways he could attract evangelical voters. Wead secretly recorded those sessions and has now played some of them for the New York Times, which will publish an in-depth, front-page report in Sunday's editions.
{SNIP}
[B]In the transcripts included in the Times report, Bush appears clumsy about meeting with evangelical leaders back in 1998. [/B]
"As you said, there are some code words," said Bush. "There are some proper ways to say things, and some improper ways. I am going to say that I've accepted Christ into my life. And that's a true statement."
Bush does not appear entirely comfortable about these meetings largely because he did not share their political agenda.
He worried, for instance, that prominent Christian leaders would not like his refusal "to kick gays."
"At the same time, he was wary of unnerving secular voters by meeting publicly with evangelical leaders," reports the Times. "When he thought his aides had agreed to such a meeting, Mr. Bush complained to Karl Rove, his political strategist, 'What the hell is this about?'"
{SNIP}
There's a boastful side of Bush evident in the tapes. In 1998, he was running for re-election as Texas governor. On the eve of his re-election in November, he tells Wead: "I believe tomorrow is going to change Texas politics forever. The top three offices right below me will be the first time there has been a Republican in that slot since the Civil War. Isn't that amazing? And I hate to be a braggart, but they are going to win for one reason: me."
But Bush said he wouldn't be corrupted by power because, "I have got a great wife. And I read the Bible daily. The Bible is pretty good about keeping your ego in check."
2005-03-03 18:39 | User Profile
weisbrot,
More stuff
[url]http://www.dougwead.com/[/url]
frontline: the jesus factor: interviews: doug wead | PBS [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/wead.html[/url]
Evangelical aide has Bush taped on drugs, UN and gay sex - news [url]http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050222bush.shtml[/url]
2005-03-05 16:27 | User Profile
Well, he appears to be an idiot. He's still using that "they just come here to do the jobs that Amurcans won't do" argument, which is a hell of an insult to every American who's ever walked into a burning building to save a life, or descended into a coal mine to feed a family. Even the dullest FROBL (FreeRepublic Open Borders Lobbyist) is reluctant to use that talking point these days, though that may change after the recent purges. Of course, the nation wrecking old media hacks never challenge politicians when they spout that nonsense, so Jorge knows he can get away with it.
IMO, he's a sleazy pol who knows that he'll be able to get away with almost anything, in terms of rewarding his cronies and taking care of family business, as long as he advances the Jewish Agenda.
2005-03-05 17:02 | User Profile
Only a fool would call W an idiot! Very few people could have pulled off an election like the one W, Cheney, Roves, and Laura did. How did they do it? One word: loyalty!
2005-03-05 18:32 | User Profile
Bush does have a certain amount of animal cunning.
2005-03-05 19:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Bush does have a certain amount of animal cunning.[/QUOTE]
No, it was white people sticking together and not cutting each other's throats.
Very few people could have pulled off an election like the one W, Cheney, Roves, and Laura did. How did they do it? One word: loyalty!
2005-03-05 19:04 | User Profile
Did anyone catch the newscast yesterday that had shrub giving a speech full of chest-puffed-out belicosity, demanding that Syria remove it's troops from Lebanon?
After concluding his "Enraged Silverback" mode for his speech, shrub switched from a "serious look" to a smirking sh!t eating smile for about 3-4 seconds, then switced back to his "serious leader" face.
He reminded me of a commercial that used to air on the local televitz many years ago. There was this Jewish fellow selling used cars that used to give this exiting pep talk of why you needed to get on down to Goldbergs Used Cars for their phoney "sale". He always had trouble keeping the sh!t eating grin on his ugly mug at the end of the commercial.
2005-03-05 20:11 | User Profile
Very few people could have pulled off an election like the one W, Cheney, Roves, and Laura did.
Gabrielle,
Very few people have found themselves in the sort of self inflicted mess that Bush did and despite the weakness I pointed out elsewhere (Kerry) came close to losing the election. 51% make not a mandate.
How did they do it? One word: loyalty!
I think you are correct on this point save one thing. Add the word "undeserved" in front of the word "loyalty". I would add stupidity, ignorance and [u]fear[/u] on the part of a lot of voters as well.
2005-03-05 20:14 | User Profile
BK,
I saw that display of belligerence. I bet when he was younger he was quite a bully until someone knocked the hell out of him. Then he deflated like a balloon. Bush is writing checks with his mouth that I am afraid others will have to cash with their lives.
2005-03-06 01:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Only a fool would call W an idiot! Very few people could have pulled off an election like the one W, Cheney, Roves, and Laura did. How did they do it? One word: loyalty![/QUOTE]
My "one word" would have been "stupidity". Of the electorate, mostly.
2005-03-06 15:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Only a fool would call W an idiot! Very few people could have pulled off an election like the one W, Cheney, Roves, and Laura did. How did they do it? One word: loyalty![/QUOTE]
Clearly your throne-sniffing addiction has addled your brain. Where's Bush's loyalty to his [URL=http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041107_election.htm]White base?[/URL] Without them this turkey would be doing make-work jobs for his old man's business buddies, yet all they get in return is the back of his hand, with ruinous immigration policies and support for [URL=http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30610]affirmative action,[/URL] and BS like the [URL=http://www.americanpatrol.com/FEATURES/020615-BUSH-POVERTY-ESTATES/Feat-ReconEstates020615.html]American Dream Down Payment Initiative.[/URL] Consider yourself fortunate that you're on a forum where you're not required to answer questions, you moron.
2005-03-06 21:48 | User Profile
[IMG]http://letsroll911.org/images/banner3.jpg[/IMG]
2005-03-06 21:55 | User Profile
Sert,
The best way to have a single party hegemony is to have a phony two-party system. When (as in the USSR) you have one party and one ideology, it is very easy for the masses to be collectively disatisfied with those in power. If only the Soviets had been clever enough to have two Communist parties with different names and trivial policy differences, they could have remained in power indefinitely in much the same way that our plutocratic elite rules unchallenged in America.
How does this trick work? Well, if things go wrong, one political party fingers the blame on the phony "opposing" party, while having no real intention of reversing any of the opponent party's actual policies or challenging their worldview. When the "opposing" party wins an election due to public discontent and continues to drive the country down the same road, the previously "losing" party can play the same game, and so on ad infinitum.
In other words, a win-win strategy for the multicultural globalist plutocracy is to present the public with the false pretense of choice when none really exists. The illusion of choice prevents a Third Party from ever mobilizing a significant threat, because at any given moment public anger will be focused towards one party or another rather than both.
2005-03-06 22:09 | User Profile
AntiYuppie,
I remember on an old thread on the Bushies... You brought up "Galton's Law of Regression."
[QUOTE]Yes, the Bush family is proof of Galton's Law of Regression... Yes, Barbara Bush's date does look like a mestizo or may be some kind of tiggerwoodz mongrel. Jenna may be the wild one but I think she seems to go for white frat boy types.
First Daughter Barbara Bush Dating a Negro [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13999[/url] [/QUOTE]
Also see:
Miss Bush: [url]http://www.thefirsttwins.com/images/JennaBush.jpg[/url]
The First Twins: Jenna Bush & Barbara Bush [url]http://www.thefirsttwins.com/main.html[/url]
2005-03-07 02:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]AntiYuppie,
I remember on an old thread on the Bushies... You brought up "Galton's Law of Regression."
Also see:
Miss Bush: [url]http://www.thefirsttwins.com/images/JennaBush.jpg[/url]
The First Twins: Jenna Bush & Barbara Bush [url]http://www.thefirsttwins.com/main.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Before you pull the twig out of those two young girl's eyes, pull the log out of your own eye.
2005-03-07 02:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Recluse]Clearly your throne-sniffing addiction has addled your brain. Where's Bush's loyalty to his [URL=http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041107_election.htm]White base?[/URL] Without them this turkey would be doing make-work jobs for his old man's business buddies, yet all they get in return is the back of his hand, with ruinous immigration policies and support for [URL=http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30610]affirmative action,[/URL] and BS like the [URL=http://www.americanpatrol.com/FEATURES/020615-BUSH-POVERTY-ESTATES/Feat-ReconEstates020615.html]American Dream Down Payment Initiative.[/URL] Consider yourself fortunate that you're on a forum where you're not required to answer questions, you moron.[/QUOTE]
Shut up, moron!
2005-03-07 06:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Sert,
The best way to have a single party hegemony is to have a phony two-party system. When (as in the USSR) you have one party and one ideology, it is very easy for the masses to be collectively disatisfied with those in power. If only the Soviets had been clever enough to have two Communist parties with different names and trivial policy differences, they could have remained in power indefinitely in much the same way that our plutocratic elite rules unchallenged in America.
How does this trick work? Well, if things go wrong, one political party fingers the blame on the phony "opposing" party, while having no real intention of reversing any of the opponent party's actual policies or challenging their worldview. When the "opposing" party wins an election due to public discontent and continues to drive the country down the same road, the previously "losing" party can play the same game, and so on ad infinitum.
In other words, a win-win strategy for the multicultural globalist plutocracy is to present the public with the false pretense of choice when none really exists. The illusion of choice prevents a Third Party from ever mobilizing a significant threat, because at any given moment public anger will be focused towards one party or another rather than both.[/QUOTE]
"No one is more hopelessly enslaved than the person who falsely believes he is free". ââ¬â Goethe:
[url]http://www.cwporter.com/prdemoc.htm[/url]
2005-03-07 16:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie] The best way to have a single party hegemony is to have a phony two-party system.[/QUOTE] AY, I agree with this wholeheartedly, and this was what I was trying in vain to tell my friends and family before the election. Another benefit of the phony two-party system is that it defines the limits of acceptable opinions. Basically, you may hold any opinion on the continuum between the Democrats (center-left) and the Republicans (center-right.) Any opinion outside these very narrow bounds is automatically 'extremist' and therefore invalid.
2005-03-07 17:55 | User Profile
[B]G.W. Bush: Useful Idiot or Corrupt Schemer?[/B]
How about just a plain 'ol disgrace to the White race. Bush is like all those White men featured in every television commercial where they're portrayed as total moronic maladroit nincompoops for all the non-Whites to make fun of. Those men are just actors, but Bush is the real deal. He's the laughingstock of the non-White world. That's bad.
2005-03-07 22:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Before you pull the twig out of those two young girl's eyes, pull the log out of your own eye.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. One of Shrub's airhead daughters is running around with a negro beau and Faust is the one with the log in his eye? I guess if you start with the premise that Bush and his spawn sit in God's right hand then uncomfortable facts come and go like water off a duck's back.
Faust:
Indeed, the Bush clan is a great case study in Galton's law of regression. The founder of the dynasty, Prescott, seemed to have had his act together in spite of being corrupt to the core. His son, George H. W. Bush, was fairly sharp by all accounts too, even if he was a mediocre President at best. In contrast, GWB himself is dull as a brick, and his party slut daughters seem to have a vocabulary that's limited to little bimbosprach phrases such as "like, you know, totally, whatever."
2005-03-08 00:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Interesting. One of Shrub's airhead daughters is running around with a negro beau and Faust is the one with the log in his eye? I guess if you start with the premise that Bush and his spawn sit in God's right hand then uncomfortable facts come and go like water off a duck's back.
Faust:
Indeed, the Bush clan is a great case study in Galton's law of regression. The founder of the dynasty, Prescott, seemed to have had his act together in spite of being corrupt to the core. His son, George H. W. Bush, was fairly sharp by all accounts too, even if he was a mediocre President at best. In contrast, GWB himself is dull as a brick, and his party slut daughters seem to have a vocabulary that's limited to little bimbosprach phrases such as "like, you know, totally, whatever."[/QUOTE]
His daughters are not sluts, you ignorant duck.
2005-03-09 12:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Sert,
The best way to have a single party hegemony is to have a phony two-party system. When (as in the USSR) you have one party and one ideology, it is very easy for the masses to be collectively disatisfied with those in power. If only the Soviets had been clever enough to have two Communist parties with different names and trivial policy differences, they could have remained in power indefinitely in much the same way that our plutocratic elite rules unchallenged in America... [/QUOTE]
AntiYuppie,
What you have written is true enough and can't be repeated too much. It is too bad that so many people can't make this distinction. I believe they really fear to admit to themselves that they have been living under a delusion for so many years.
We might as well say that there really is only one party and that is the [B]Judeo-Plutocratic Party[/B], of which the Republican branch is running the show until people get mad and replace them with the Democratic branch. The Neocons have plenty of people in both branches.
2005-03-13 04:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I am undecided about Shrub's religiosity. There are two possibilities, neither of which are very encouraging. One is that he's cynically exploiting religiosity to bamboozle his constituency into thinking that he's honest and sincere. [/QUOTE]
This is definitely the time to go with your first instincts.
If the Wash Post front-page, above the fold (including the 1/9 page photo) feature on George Bush as Saul of the GOP in the spring of 2000 didn't convince you, surely the look he shot his handlers as he "nailed" the favorite philosopher question with the Christ cinched it.
We're talking about a guy who takes the Lord's name in vain at his first televised address to the nation ... gilding with Scripture his announcement of federal subsidies for human experimentation on "already been killed" excess manufacture Potential People.
His born-again Bible Belt schtick is worse than a televangelist ... though perhaps not quite as offensive as his allegedly Catholic brother--tending the Cuban end of the drug border--who's not above tacking a starving Terri Schiavo to his Special Session such that pro-lifers are distracted from protesting (or even noting) his courting of biotech.
2005-03-13 04:53 | User Profile
An evangelical doesn't think of himself as an evangelical. He thinks of himself as a Southern Baptist or a member of the McLean Bible Church or as a Presbyterian or as a Catholic charismatic. ...
fascinating interview.