# Do Mac users support GW Bush?



## reed (Jun 1, 2006)

Just curious. Mac folks are not thrilled with Bill Gates. Is it the same for GWB? A poll. Thanks.


----------



## fryke (Jun 1, 2006)

i don't.


----------



## adambyte (Jun 1, 2006)

*snorts water I'm drinking up nose* Buahahahaha!

On a side note, Rush Limbaugh is an avid Mac user, and I think he has even discussed it on the air a few times. Weird.


----------



## sinclair_tm (Jun 1, 2006)

i support my president, even if i don't agree with everything he does.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 1, 2006)

currently, apple only supports G3's or newer.  they don't specify GWB, but some users may find that it works.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 1, 2006)

nope...


----------



## hawki18 (Jun 2, 2006)

Hell yes


----------



## symphonix (Jun 2, 2006)

Hell no.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 2, 2006)

symphonix said:
			
		

> Hell no.


ditto ::evil::


----------



## bbloke (Jun 2, 2006)

Absolutely not.

(Would it be a good idea to convert this thread to a proper poll as well?)


----------



## delsoljb32 (Jun 2, 2006)

I support our president.


----------



## Cat (Jun 2, 2006)

I sometimes wonder what exactly is meant by "support"? That you did vote him? That you would vote him? That, even while not agreeing on everything, you share his worldview or policies? Or simply that because he is your Head of State you ought to "support" him in the sense of being loyal to you fatherland?

I often hear people saying "I'm against the war, but I support our troops" I do understand that perfectly well. The soldiers on the ground are not responsible for the war as such. 

So please clarify what you mean with "support".


----------



## fryke (Jun 2, 2006)

for a poll, what options should there be? just yes and no? or two yes- and no-options for US citizens and non-US citizens? and "a little" in the middle?  is a poll really needed? is there _any_ way that people still think that something inside of GWB is actually _good_?


----------



## delsoljb32 (Jun 2, 2006)

Yes, I voted for him and I agree with his policies. I am for the war and I support our troops. 

Our great modern Republic.  May those who seek the blessings of its institutions and the protection of its flag remember the obligations they impose.  ~Ulysses S. Grant

We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights.  ~Felix Frankfurter


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jun 2, 2006)

Wow, this is a tough one.  Let's see, now.  G.W.Bush:

is an imbecile

is incompetent

is a Schicklgruber wannabe

is an obvious sociopath

is a sadist

is gleefully doing his part in turning the USA into a Fascist Police State

said, "Don't throw the Constitution in my face!  It's just a god damned piece of paper!", and has amply demonstrated that it's merely a piece of toilet paper

is a willing, but stupid, player in the Satanic Junta now controlling this country, known as EVIL, INC.

fully realizes that this world is the God given property of the USA

knows that this country is the biggest, baddest, most powerful and most vicious rogue nation that this world has ever seen, bar none

Hell, yes,  I support him.  AMERIKA UBER ALLES!!!


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 2, 2006)

Mobius Rex said:
			
		

> Wow, this is a tough one.  Let's see, now.  G.W.Bush:
> 
> is an imbecile
> 
> ...



i hope your being sarcastic


----------



## fryke (Jun 2, 2006)

Yeah, irony is difficult.  But if it's put this obviously, it's quite clear, I think.


----------



## reed (Jun 2, 2006)

When I said "support" I meant do you agree with his policies and how he runs our country (and the world?). 
  This question is for non-Americans seeing how what his administration has done (and is doing) affects the World.
  Rush L. is an avid Mac user? It must be due to what he swallows.
  Okay, this is not really a "poll." I'm sorry. I'm just chucking this out. You can say whatever you like....or not reply. There is no "yes," "no" "maybe" criterion.
   I hope there will be more. Many thanks.
 No, not the new "GWB" model. Just the new "GW" version.


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jun 2, 2006)

> i hope your being sarcastic


Reply:


----------



## fryke (Jun 2, 2006)

i wonder when we'll see such high-res smiley-faces all over the place.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 2, 2006)

Mobius Rex said:
			
		

> Wow, this is a tough one.  Let's see, now.  G.W.Bush:
> 
> is an imbecile
> 
> ...









*Rule Britannia! Huzzah!*


----------



## bbloke (Jun 3, 2006)

lol

Thanks Mobius Rex, you gave me two good laughs in one day.  

Of course, when those outside the US criticize George W. Bush, it should not be taken as a personal attack on the American people, nor should it be seen as "anti-Americanism."  There is a strong distinction between individuals and the leaders of any nation.  Also, importantly, those who criticize the Bush administration from within the US should not be portrayed as non-patriots/subversives.


Some interesting quotes:

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
-Benjamin Franklin


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin


"The people never give up their freedom, except under some delusion."
-James Madison


And some conservatives might be surprised to read what a former Republican president once said:

"No, I'm not sure that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."

-George Bush (Senior)


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 3, 2006)

Most of you outside the US have really no idea that Bush Jr. has lost his support of the Conservative element of his Republican political party.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 3, 2006)

Satcomer said:
			
		

> Most of you outside the US have really no idea that Bush Jr. has lost his support of the Conservative element of his Republican political party.


I can't speak for everyone outside of the US, obviously, but in the UK we do hear of George W. Bush's ratings being at a low and of rumblings within the Republican party about him.  At the same time, though, he does still receive some sort of support, whether in his role as the president or as a conservative leader for now.  Equally, I think many within the US have little idea of just how unpopular Bush is in the rest of the world, and how international relations have been affected during his time in office.  In slightly more general terms, I think that outside of the US there is a perception, whether rightly or wrongly, that dissent is seen as unpatriotic (almost treason) by many Americans in the current climate, and I think this can alarm outsiders.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 3, 2006)

It alarms insiders, too.

But it's difficult to get a real idea of the American mindset, for both insiders and outsiders. America is a huge country. I live in New York, an overwhelmingly liberal state. A lot of what other countries see of America is as foreign to me as it is to them.

Honestly, I don't think this "American image" is really accurate in any part of America. The media hardly gives us fair representation. Most people on TV are childish fanatics (whichever side they happen to be on) &#8212; axe-grinders who are perfectly happy to abandon all rational thought and logic as long as it sounds good for a few seconds at a time.

Conservatives complain about the "liberal media". Liberals complain about the "conservative media". They both exist, and they're both equally disgraceful.


To answer the original question: Not this Mac user.


----------



## g/re/p (Jun 4, 2006)

Sean Penn paid $56,000 to publish an open letter to Bush on a nearly full page in the Washington Post:

"Many of your actions to date and those proposed seem to violate every defining principle of this country over which you preside: intolerance of debate... marginalisation of your critics, the promoting of fear through unsubstantiated rhetoric, manipulation of a quick comfort media, and the position of your administration's deconstruction of civil liberties all contradict the very core of the patriotism you claim," he wrote.


I agree totally with his opinion.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jun 4, 2006)

No, I do not support George W. Bush (or the current Congress for that matter), for many reasons... lack of intellect, established history of making poor judgements or allowing important issues to lapse causing even larger problems, ignoring domestic affairs in favor of foreign policy, medicare reform (elderly people CANNOT understand all of the different insurance plans), and elimination of some vital government services.  Federal Student Loans are fewer and farther between than they used to be, and at higher interest rates, making it more difficult for an average American to attain higher education - seems he (and the Republican Party) want to keep people ignorant and uneducated so that they can flip burgers, push mobile phones, or work in the service sector at Best Buy, Walmart, and K-mart, while RENTING apartments instead of owning a HOME.  America is more divided now than in the last 50 years.  This country is headed in the wrong direction.  If you disagree with me, then I encourage you to research the bills W has signed into law, and ask yourself 'are these bills/laws helping PEOPLE or big business?'

Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.


----------



## hawki18 (Jun 4, 2006)

yes I support President Bush and I did vote for him both times.  and bbloke it not Bush Jr. Yes alot of american do not like coments form people outside the us when they take a poke at us or our President, somw time that includes me, and other times depending the comments I just tell myself they don't got a clue.


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 5, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> But it's difficult to get a real idea of the American mindset, for both insiders and outsiders. America is a huge country. I live in New York, an overwhelmingly liberal state. A lot of what other countries see of America is as foreign to me as it is to them.




I use to live in the Corning area and went to school in Rochester. Unless thing drastically changed in the largest part of New York State (most of Upstate) then you think Long Island and NYC are the only part of New York State! If you ever went to one of Hillary's speeches Upstate you downstate snobs would be REALLY surprised her CONSERVATIVE sounding speeches. Besides those in Albany, Rochester downtown or Buffalo downtown most of Upstate New York is most definitely not Liberal.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 5, 2006)

hawki18 said:
			
		

> and bbloke it not Bush Jr.


Errrrrmmm, yesssss, that's why I wrote:



			
				bbloke said:
			
		

> "No, I'm not sure that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."
> 
> -George Bush *(Senior)*


and not "George W. Bush" or "George Bush Jr."



			
				hawki18 said:
			
		

> I just tell myself they don't got a clue


 That will be the case for *some* of Bush's detractors, but, likewise, some of Bush's *supporters* will be equally clueless.  So, this sort of comment can apply to anyone from any political wing. One needs to be quite careful about being too dismissive, though, as plenty of people can cite good reasons, backed up with factual evidence, why they have a strong dislike of Bush. For anyone, on either side, to simply dismiss others as clueless and ignore what they have to say would be a case of sticking one's head in the sand.


----------



## reed (Jun 5, 2006)

Yes, A lot of Upper New York State is not Liberal (but the State voted against G. W. Bush in each presidential election all the same) and yes Hillary is a wimp on many issues....especially concerning Iraq. However, my brother who has a house in Philmont, NY (up the Hudson) and not exactly a "Liberal" area sent me this:
  Somebody or some group paid for space on a huge billboard just out of town. It read: "Conservatives are like dead fish. They flow with the stream."


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 5, 2006)

I have to echo bbloke's comment some posts back about not equating the @$$hole at the helm with your average US citizen. It is possible to dislike George W. Bush and yet have nothing at all against a person just because he was born in the USA.

I think that it is those American who "have got God" that are the problem (aka the Neo-Conservative Religious Right), just as it is with those in the Middle East who claim that their violent actions are carried out in the name of Islam.

*DOWN with religious extremisim!* They're so busy condemmning anyone and anything that doesn't conform with their own blinkered interpretations of their particular holy book that they forget the fundamental message of _ALL_ holy books: 

*Love your fellow human beings and treat them well!*


----------



## reed (Jun 5, 2006)

I agree. Religious kooks are everywhere. Unfortunately, the Religious Right in the US are the those that helped put GWB in office and to whom he plays lip service. He speaks to God you know. Also, remember John "prayer meetings" Ashcroft?
  Someone once said: "'In God we trust.' All others pay cash.'"


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jun 5, 2006)

> Yes alot of american do not like coments form people outside the us when they take a poke at us or our President, somw time that includes me, and other times depending the comments I just tell myself they don't got a clue.



Uh, yeah right, some folks just "...don't got a clue".


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 5, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> ...it's difficult to get a real idea of the American mindset, for both insiders and outsiders. America is a huge country. I live in New York, an overwhelmingly liberal state. A lot of what other countries see of America is as foreign to me as it is to them.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think this "American image" is really accurate in any part of America. The media hardly gives us fair representation. Most people on TV are childish fanatics (whichever side they happen to be on)  axe-grinders who are perfectly happy to abandon all rational thought and logic as long as it sounds good for a few seconds at a time.....


I think this is the most helpful post in this thread. As an example, outsiders frequently complain about the Bush administration's lack of response to the threat of global warming, yet some US states pursue progressive 'green' policies that would put a number of European countries to shame.

Likewise, not all Americans are 'blind faith' Christian fanatics (i.e. no understanding of the New Testament) and not all are fixated with corporate greed (which seems to go hand-in-hand with Christian fundamentalism).

As a Briton, I am very concerned with the Bush-Blair Axis. I suspect Iraq has more to do with Bush Snr and his cronies than poor old Dubya. I think Blair simply wants to go down in history as a 'Churchillian' statesman.

God Bless America (and I really do mean that) and God Help Us All.


----------



## HateEternal (Jun 5, 2006)

I love the fact that this is an international board. You guys have some really interesting views and I enjoy reading them. It almost makes me think I belong somewhere else.

I could say so much more, but that is all.


----------



## reed (Jun 6, 2006)

rhisiart....
GWB and Tony (the phoney?) is an interesting topic. What a couple. Tony got sucked into Iraq and boy he's no Churchill. Who invaded who? And for what reason? Democracy? Oil? Weapons of Mass Destruction? Terrorism? All of the above or none of the above? He's Labor. Shameful. But what can you do? This is how things have worked out. Now what?
  An aside for the thread....
  One thing is sure one has the right to his/her opinions concerning the USA   and the way this administration is dealing with things (from wherever one comes from). We Americans do it all the time. In fact everybody does it. If I criticize Bush am I an anti-American? If I'm Jewish and for the de-colonisation of the occupied territorities am I anti-Semite. If I think Ben Laden and other fanatics are not true Muslims am I anti-Arab or true followers of the Koran? Or if I think Creationists can't see beyond their noses (and only read the passages in the Bible that interest them) am I anti-Christian, etc.. The answer, I think or hope is correct is... of course not.


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2006)

Depends on which side you're on.


----------



## reed (Jun 6, 2006)

Indeed. Vast program.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 6, 2006)

reed said:
			
		

> One thing is sure one has the right to his/her opinions concerning the USA   and the way this administration is dealing with things (from wherever one comes from). We Americans do it all the time. In fact everybody does it.


&#8230;unless, of course, you are involved in research into climate change, in which case you aren't allowed to speak out on the issue without the Bush Administration's prior scrutiny and approval of your statements.



			
				reed said:
			
		

> If I'm Jewish and for the de-colonisation of the occupied territorities am I anti-Semite.


That's got nothing to do with anti-semitism. If wishing that Israel would retreat to within its original, UN-mandated borders is anti-semitic, then I'm anti-semitic! But I know for a fact that I think no worse of a man, just because parts of his wedding tackle are shorter than mine!



			
				reed said:
			
		

> If I think Ben Laden and other fanatics are not true Muslims am I anti-Arab or true followers of the Koran?


Osama bin Laden's actions and those of others of his kind are _purely political_. Having lived in Saudi Arabia, I know for sure that I have nothing to fear from Islam (which is the Arabic word for Peace). George W is as guilty as bin Laden of using religion to wage a political war!



			
				reed said:
			
		

> Or if I think Creationists can't see beyond their noses (and only read the passages in the Bible that interest them) am I anti-Christian, etc.


However hard I try, I can find no redeeming qualities in _this_ bunch of blinkered lunatics&#8230;


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 6, 2006)

I go along with John Fowles' theory of God. It's like being given a board game; you get a few throws of the dice and you work with what you get. The point is that God can't intervene, otherwise you lose the plot (i.e it gets too easy, so how can you learn?).

I reckon Abraham, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Krishnu, Buddha and Mohammed worked all this out. 

Sadly, certain 'psycho-egomaniac' politicos choose to corrupt these teachings to gain power (e.g. Bush Snr, Osama Bin Liner, a wanker called Blair). The 'deluded devils' incarnate.


----------



## reed (Jun 6, 2006)

I think you catch my drift. I rest my case your Honor.


----------



## reed (Jun 6, 2006)

PS.
  There are so many sites along these lines but here is one for starters:

http://www.CommonDreams.org/


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jun 6, 2006)

For a really good take on the Cheney-Bush Junta's drive to turn the USA into a Police State, and the parallel between America now and Germany of the 1930's, check this out: http://www.hermes-press.com/germany1930.htm
Heads up, boys and girls.  It's later than you think!


----------



## reed (Jun 7, 2006)

Wow Mobius Rex. Where did you find this site?


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jun 7, 2006)

I found it following links during a surfing expedition, one day some time back.  Livergood's got some really interesting writing on his site. http://www.hermes-press.com/


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 8, 2006)

Maybe I am just observing the obvious (I don't support Jr. anymore) but hardly no one outside the U.S. (and the majority in the U.S.) like GW. I mean these political discussions on the net seem to go around in circles. If you truly want to make a difference, get out and vote in every election from local to national. This is the only way you are going to stop him.


----------



## reed (Jun 8, 2006)

absolutely. Voting is the key. But its fun to shoot the bull on GWB sometimes.


----------



## adambyte (Jun 8, 2006)

A poll was taken during the 2004 election, and the ONLY European country whose majority of people would have voted for George W. Bush was.... Poland.

[Insert Polish joke here]


----------



## symphonix (Jun 8, 2006)

For those of you who would like to oppose George W Bush in a meaningful way. I suggest visiting http://impeachforpeace.org/ to learn about how ordinary citizens working together can force an impeachment hearing. This would mean that once and for all, GW would have to answer before the people for his numerous crimes against democracy and freedom.

The charges to be brought forth in this impeachment memorial are listed here.



> ...set forth that, George W. Bush has intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq ...
> ...has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants...
> ...has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants...
> ...ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention...



This sums up my reasons for hating Bush, along with manipulating election results, playing the media, abandoning the Kyoto protocol, lying to and defying the UN security council, shutting down investigations into illegal spying and wire tapping on US citizens, and escalating the war in the middle east.

Have any of you guys actually looked at a map of the middle east lately? From Afghanistan to Israel the only country that isn't either co-operating fully with the US or occupied by US forces is Iran, and even now the US are trying to invent reasons to go to war with them. In the last five years though, both India and Pakistan have developed nuclear weapons and the White House has stayed silent. As for North Korea and its nuclear ambitions, has anyone bothered to point out that the USA actually *gave* North Korea its two nuclear reactors? Oh, yeah, and here in Australia our EVIL Prime-Minister is insisting we should support action in Iran to stop them building nuclear reactors, while at the same time trying to lobby to get Australia to build nuclear reactors of our own.

I strongly urge my American friends on the boards here to read and consider the evidence and not to be afraid to actually fill in this impeachment memorial. Democracy only works if people speak out through democratic channels. Just writing about it on a forum like this doesn't achieve nearly as much.

And if you feel you have a duty to support your president just on prinicple, you obviously haven't understood how lucky you are to live in a country with democracy and free speech.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 9, 2006)

Personally I'd rather just put him up against a wall and have an Iraqi firing squad shoot 'im!


----------



## reed (Jun 9, 2006)

Symphonix...........

 Well said...however...

 Concerning the Non-proliferation Treaty, after Pakistan and India you forgot one other country. Israel. And why? A very dangerous part of the World. No? The White House was not the only one that was "silent" by the way.  See site below for the NPT. Iran, on paper, has the right to their nuclear program. In fact the president was Democratically elected. Nutto, I agree, but that is the way the cooky crumbles. Democracy in Iraq is the same. In a word, all that GWB and Tony have put forth for a free world in this region is 90% pure BS. Excuses built on lies. We all know this. I think. So... what do we do now? "The Dye is cast."
All the best.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/

PS Forums are sometimes ways of venting anger and joy and...getting some good information and feedback. Very silly at times, but what the hec.You enter into it or you go elsewhere. Why not? No more, no less.


----------



## symphonix (Jun 9, 2006)

Well said Reed. Yeah, I had overlooked Israel - and that is one point which does make me angry, mostly because up until 2000 I actually felt that the Israel / Palestinian conflict might finally be winding down. They'd managed to agree on borders, they'd pretty much stopped (officially) attacking each other, and they were even discussing compensation and disarmament. Under Clinton, the Israelis and Palestinians were ready to start mending fences and ending the blooshed. Now, I really feel that the current US regime is just fuelling the fire. That makes me angry, because its the poor saps on the streets in Israel and Palestine - both sides of the wall - who are going to suffer for it.

And as for my comment that it is better to actually do something constructive than just post on the forums, I certainly believe that discussing this sort of issue on a forum like this is a very good thing. The best way to further the democratic process is to discuss openly with people the issues that we're all worried about. After all, wasn't the first 'democracy' invented in a forum?


----------



## reed (Jun 9, 2006)

Yes indeed...
   "the poor saps on ( ) ..both sides of the wall-who are going to suffer."
   As usual. That's the drama and the trajedy. I always thought the old warriors must "go" for a new generation to create an understanding or at least a compromise. I don't see that with the in-fighting in Gaza and the hard line of the ex (so to speak) Sharon government. It will be up hill all the way.
  Also, GWB/Rumsfeld & Co. have chucked so much sand into the geopolitical gears, I think we are in for the long haul. And boy! the fanatics are going to have yet another reason to be just that...fanatic.
  As long as we guzzle gasoline and pig out guys like Bush/Cheney,his friends and the like (See Enron. Chapter 10) will always find a way to "protect" OUR  interests and make a hefty buck.
  I'm going off onto a tangent that I have no idea where it will lead. Sorry
  Cheers


----------



## bbloke (Jun 12, 2006)

And now, of course, we have news of the triple suicide at Guantanamo Bay.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5068228.stm



			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have died in what appears to have been a suicide pact.   The inmates, two Saudis and a Yemeni, hanged themselves in their cells.
> The camp commander said the deaths - the first at the camp - were planned in "an act of warfare".




Of course, the existence of the camp, the detention without charge and without trial, restriction of access to the inmates, and allegations of bad treatment all undermine any moral highground that is being claimed.  If there is any bad PR here, it doesn't suddenly come out of nowhere from this latest news, it has been cumulative...

Looking at how the event is being seen in some areas of the Middle East (and this is of course important to know):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5070952.stm



			
				BBC said:
			
		

> EDITORIAL IN SAUDI *ARAB NEWS*
> The tragedy was just waiting to happen... These deaths reflect the desperation for a basic human need - a need for justice, a need to have someone hear what these incarcerated people have to say, then be duly punished if a crime has been committed or be set free.
> Three of the detainees are now gone without ever having seen a court or enjoyed a system of justice that is held so dearly by their captors.
> 
> ...


----------



## fryke (Jun 12, 2006)

Yeah, I just guess there's not a _real_ chance that the USA and George W. Bush have to _actually_ stand trial for their crimes against humanity. It's a pity, but the bully rules the playground currently.


----------



## reed (Jun 12, 2006)

You bet fryke. 
   Speaking of bullies check out our Ambassor to the UN, John Bolton. What a crew Dubya has put together! Just amazing. And he got re-elected on top of it all. He stole the first one and won the second. That's the real bummer.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 12, 2006)

A colleague found this on the web:
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm
Strangely satisfying!


----------



## bbloke (Jun 12, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> A colleague found this on the web:
> http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm
> Strangely satisfying!


Took me a few moments before I realized it was interactive.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 12, 2006)

I've seen one similar to this a while back, although it was with a female dressed in a bikini (of all things! )....I think I even posted a link to it here once.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 12, 2006)

If it was a _good looking_ girl in a _skimpy_ bikini, you'll have to post the link again!


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jun 12, 2006)

> A colleague found this on the web:
> http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm
> Strangely satisfying!



Yeah, it IS quite satisfying........now, if they'd just make 
some of these featuring Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the whole rabies infected pack of those hounds from Hell, I'd be occupied for days at a time!


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jun 12, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Yeah, I just guess there's not a _real_ chance that the USA and George W. Bush have to _actually_ stand trial for their crimes against humanity. It's a pity, but the bully rules the playground currently.



While I personally don't like the existence Camp X-Ray AKA "Gitmo" as I believe it to be location of human rights violations, I understand the necessity for it.  By calling the detainees "enemy combatants", the U.S. government is attempting to deny these people, as long as politically possible both domestically and abroad, the rights set forth by the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. so fervently defends for its troops internationally.  The objective for denying these people "prisoner of war" status and rights is to isolate them completely from the outside world, instill fear and hopelessness as a means for breaking them psychologically to provide possible information about the inner workings of terrorist networks.  With more open borders between nations for commerce, the terrorists are fighting against the "Western Infadels" in a manner analogous to the American Indian.  The indians didn't fight according to the "established rules of war" in Europe at that time, and now that laws are in place to protect human rights, crafted by word-smiths, AKA "Lawyers", the U.S. government changed the language of the captured to extract as much information as possible from the detainees until the whole world is pressuring the U.S. for due process of law for these people.

Calling the U.S. "bullies on the playground" is I think, a bit strong and out of context.  As a U.S. citizen, I know that the general public is not "pro-war" as is the phonetically and grammatically challenged gun-slinging cowboy who is currently occupying the Presidential Office.  Note that I did not refer to "W" as the President.  No one here wants to send their sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters to war.  I am sincerely concerned that "W" does not comprehend the scope of his (in)decisions and actions, and that this established and continued activity will only propagate negativity, resentment, and hostility towards the U.S.

For clarity of my argument, I think that "W" means well for most major events that require action/intervention, but I am concerned about his inability to execute language properly.  If I recall correctly, languistic ability is directly related to thinking ability, memory, span, etc...  Listening to "W" speak, one would never have thought that he graduated from Yale University, an Ivy League school.  While I know that "W" has some redeaming qualities, I think that his talents lie elsewhere and not with the Presidency of the United States.  I'm not trying to slam him as a human being or politically, but clearly his talents lie in some other arena.  I would have the same opinion of a democrat or independent occupying the executive office or other high-ranking government office if he or she displayed these qualities.


----------



## hawki18 (Jun 13, 2006)

reed said:
			
		

> You bet fryke.
> Speaking of bullies check out our Ambassor to the UN, John Bolton. What a crew Dubya has put together! Just amazing. And he got re-elected on top of it all. He stole the first one and won the second. That's the real bummer.



France sells the nuke reactors to Iraq and you have riots all over your county Started by a bunch of immigrants in France.  Who say they want to be citizens of France.  What does Jock do nothing but let them riot.  Then in typical French snobbery you shoot down Bush you should start with you own country first.


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2006)

chemistry_geek: I agree that calling the USA "the bully in the playground" might be a bit off and, well, over-over-simplified, but it also hits a point, I think.

hawki18: And you.  (I like how telling someone to start with their _own_ problems is always the first step to hearing the same message a second later...)


----------



## bbloke (Jun 13, 2006)

chemistry_geek: I agree with a lot of the sentiments you expressed.  

With regards to Guantanamo Bay, I feel that another couple of reasons for the strange labelling of the inmates is so that they do not fall within the usual categories... that is, I believe they aim to be able to do whatever they want to them without "interference," plus... well... they don't really have the evidence to support their suspicions!  I believe there are over 460 inmates, and only 10 have been charged.   It is sometimes said that the inmates are dangerous fighters or terrorists, and yet many have been detained on flimsy evidence (often just hearsay), rather than being "caught in the act" or something.  One really needs to ask: if the evidence is so weak, or non-existent, should they really still be there?  These people have been detained for years without charge, without proper access to the outside world, and there are allegations of abuse.  This would all cause *outrage* if practiced on home soil against American citizens, with regards to normal crimes.  Also, if not criminals but POWs, then surely they would have to be released and treated well (not tortured etc.) and, importantly, when exactly will the "war on terror" ever be won?   Conveniently: never.   A perpetual state of fear/alert/war allows a government to clamp down on civil liberties, increase defense spending, and practice all sorts of "preemptive" (hmmm) measures abroad.  In short, they get away with things a less fearful public would hopefully never agree to.

One also has to wonder what purpose exactly it serves to incarcerate a 15 year old boy (Mohammed El Gharani) at Guantanamo Bay.  He has already tried to kill himself twice.  No doubt he is a devious terrorist who is trying to wage a propaganda war.

When chemistry_geek commented on Native Americans waging unconventional war against the European settlers, it reminded me of a couple of things.  The Native Americans learned various practices, such as "scalping," from Europeans.  Also, more importantly, the revolutionary colonists who founded the current day USA fought a guerilla campaign, they too did not fight conventionally.  No doubt the founding fathers would therefore be seen as terrorists of their day...

With regards to fryke's comment about the US being the "bully of the playground," in some ways it is rather strong, but in other ways it is quite fair, alas.   There is a long history of events, but I don't think we need to go into it right now, in order to keep the focus of the thread (i.e. the Bush administration's record).  I wish George W. Bush was only a well-meaning-but-incompetent leader with a poor grasp of the English language.  I am concerned that it is not as innocent as that, though.

hawki18: It is true that other countries (all, in fact!) have their hands dirty and have their own problems.  No one is disputing that here.  In fact, you will for instance see those in the UK here complaining about the current government.  No country can really claim to have the moral high ground. What is sometimes sensed, however, is that there is more jingoism coming from some Americans, and the USA (being a powerful nation) has the potential to do a lot of harm when it is heavy-handed; that is perhaps why people sometimes focus more on US foreign policy.  It is true that France sold the nuclear reactors to Iraq.  It is also true that the US was a major supporter of Saddam Hussein's regime (not least because he was enemies with Iran), so, if you want to get into this, you might find the US has a dirtier past than you expect.  The US is also by far the greatest exporter of arms:
US:   $18,555m
Russia:   $4,600m
France:   $4,400m
UK:   $1,900m
Germany:   $900m
Canada:   $900m
China:   $700m
But it looks odd when people advocate invasions of other countries, the bombing of far away lands, detention of foreign people without trial, and the like, but then complain that foreigners should not meddle in their affairs.  *ahem*


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 13, 2006)

Good post bbloke. I though the UK were higher than most countries (e.g. France). Small comfort however that we are still in the top league.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 13, 2006)

rhisiart said:
			
		

> Good post bbloke.


Thanks.    


			
				rhisiart said:
			
		

> I though the UK were higher than most countries (e.g. France). Small comfort however that we are still in the top league.


These figures were from 2004, as I didn't have more up to date ones to hand, but they should give a general idea.  I'm sure the league table won't invert over the course of one year!  Agreed, though, it's rather depressing to see how much Western countries make from the sales of arms, especially as sales are often made to oppressive regimes and areas of conflict.


----------



## reed (Jun 15, 2006)

chemistry geek
While I know that "W" has some redeaming qualities, I think that his talents lie elsewhere and not with the Presidency of the United States.  I'm not trying to slam him as a human being or politically, but clearly his talents lie in some other arena.  I would have the same opinion of a democrat or independent occupying the executive office or other high-ranking government office if he or she displayed these qualities.[/QUOTE]

I understand what you are saying but I have to throw this in concerning GWB's "talents lie in some other arena."
 Where do you think it is possible that he has talents in another area?
 1.University? Dad got him into Yale. He can't even speak English correctly
 2. Air Force? AWOL and got out of Vietnam PDQ (like Cheney). Thanks dad.
 3. Businessman. Wrong again. Three companies he ran in Texas went flop under his management.
 4.Governor. Okay for the death penalty. Murder rate has risen in Texas. Nice try. Otherwise....what did he do in the Lone Star State?
 5. Barkeep. Nope. He's off the booze.
 6. Preacher? Maybe. "I speak to God"
 7. Stand-up comic? Well, he "writes" his own material. Good for starters.
 8. Librarian? Doesn't read books. 
 9. Cowboy. Niet. Can't ride a horse. 4 wheel drive only. Shucks!
 10.Advertizing? Well, you have to have some original ideas. But cheating the public may get his foot in the door.
 11. As George Carlin once said: "Anybody can become the President of the United States. That's the problem."
  So, leave GWB where he is. Our leader. Our light. This the only job he was cut out for.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Jun 15, 2006)

I voted for and support President George W. Bush and respect him as a person and man of faith.
Many people in the United States of America are just pissed off because they feel their rights are being taken away. One of these rights is gay marriage.
They see the Christian communities involvement in certain issues as a threat and blame everything associated with the Bush Administration on them regardless of the issues. Everyone here talks about being open and embracing each others beliefs but when it comes to Christians ideas and beliefs they are up in arms.
To comment on all Holy Books are the same, http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/texttest.html, here is an interesting read about the subject.

Here are some other reasons why Americans are pissed off: higher gas prices, higher taxes, unemployment rate, illegal immigration, gay marriage, christian texts and symbols taken down, and many other things.

As much as a I appreciate the help from people in other countries with my mac; I don't think their opinions matter on whether they support our President or not.


----------



## g/re/p (Jun 15, 2006)

Bush is an incompetent idiot - and the opinions of people from other countries about bush DO matter, because his actions effect more than just the people of the USA.

You will probably get some flames over that statement.


----------



## hawki18 (Jun 16, 2006)

Reed 

Typical French superior to everyone else statement, next time France finds it self in troub in trouble don't call us like ww1 and 2


----------



## Ashka (Jun 16, 2006)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> Bush is an incompetent idiot - and the opinions of people from other countries about bush DO matter, because his actions effect more than just the people of the USA.
> 
> You will probably get some flames over that statement.




No flames from here ~ 

Bush is a dangerous idiot never mind incompetent.


----------



## g/re/p (Jun 16, 2006)

I meant he would probabaly get flamed for saying this:

"As much as a I appreciate the help from people in other countries with my mac; I don't think their opinions matter on whether they support our President or not."



...and he should  ::ha::


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jun 16, 2006)

> Bush is a dangerous idiot


Well, of course!  And I think that a very good case can be made that  BUSH SUPPORTERS, as well, are DANGEROUS IDIOTS!
A valid question might be, "Are Bush supporters of lower intelligence than Bush opposers?".


----------



## magilum (Jun 16, 2006)

bbloke said:
			
		

> [...]outside of the US there is a perception, whether rightly or wrongly, that dissent is seen as unpatriotic (almost treason) by many Americans in the current climate, and I think this can alarm outsiders.



It alarms me, too. Every news day there's a new emergency; a new reason why murmurs of dissent would immediately destroy this country. It wears thin when you realize that GW is paying off his campaign supporters with these wartime contracts -- or when you see he and his staff go through the effort to make a video presentation to laugh off the lack of WMDs located in Iraq (the immediate threat cited as reason to lead so many soldiers and civilians to their deaths).

There's an expression that says a liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet. I wonder to what party the mugger belongs.


----------



## reed (Jun 16, 2006)

hawki18 said:
			
		

> Reed
> 
> Typical French superior to everyone else statement, next time France finds it self in troub in trouble don't call us like ww1 and 2




 I'm from New York. And a patriot.Where do you see the superiority deal? Cause GWB and Dick Cheney wanted a war in Iraq based on lies and the Frenchies said "not with us?" I don't give a hoot about Chirac and politics in general but they were correct to be not lead into such a stupid adventure. They were there for the 1st Gulf War by the way.One that was politically correct. 
  They are heavily engaged in Afganhistan against the Talibans.... the seat of terrorism. In fact the Frenchies have been fighting terrorism long before 9/11 and the London Transport attacks. London use to be the European HQ for terrorists.And we didn't see the handwriting on the wall.
  Don't mix apples with oranges.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 16, 2006)

Well said, g/re/p... both times!   



			
				ApeintheShell said:
			
		

> As much as a I appreciate the help from people in other countries with my mac; I don't think their opinions matter on whether they support our President or not.


Whoa, that sounds rather arrogant.  I can fully understand someone saying that, ultimately, it is up to the citizens of a country to choose their own leader, but saying other peoples' opinions absolutely do not matter is rather astonishing.  I despair when people effectively put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to others; this is not the way the world becomes a better place.

Our leaders affect other countries too... particularly when they invade them!  This is really not about whether or not people take issue with one particular branch of Christianity (it is not fair to equate Christianity to Protestant Fundamentalism).  Not at all.  This is about a range of issues which affect people worldwide, and people around the world have every right to hold views on issues which affect them!



			
				hawki18 said:
			
		

> Typical French superior to everyone else statement, next time France finds it self in troub in trouble don't call us like ww1 and 2


Hmmm, this too sounds very arrogant (ironically!).  It also seems to imply a major lack of understanding of history...


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 16, 2006)

Tony Blair was only able to take Britain to war in Iraq by winning a vote in the British Parliament (with roughly 650 politicians voting).

However, most of Tony's political party (Labour), which hold a majority of parliamentary seats, were against the war and threatened to vote against Britain&#8217;s involvement. Furthermore, 3,000,000 Britons marched in London and other British cities, pleading with Blair not to invade Iraq.

Tony's own advisors said going to war was a very bad idea and the Attorney General thought that it would be illegal. Even GWB on the eve of the vote rang Blair to say that America would understand if Britain decided to pull out.

So what did Tony do with all this advice? On his own volition, at the eleventh hour, he approached as many Labour MPs as he could and told them that the government would collapse if it lost the vote and that they could lose their seats in Parliament. That scared the crap out of most of them, so they switched their vote to support Britain&#8217;s involvement in the invasion of Iraq.

They complained that Iraq was a dictatorship. Yet, it was a Blair dictatorship that took Britain to war!


----------



## g/re/p (Jun 17, 2006)

Did Blair hold a gun to their heads or threaten them with bodily injury or incarceration?


----------



## fryke (Jun 18, 2006)

For a politician, losing a seat is probably more threatening than bodily injuries.


----------



## hawki18 (Jun 18, 2006)

A typical lib response just cause not everyone leans left you insult us by saying we can not be as smart as you libs, I have said my piece on not seeing  eye to eye with your view.  But not once did I call anyone stupid.  Reed if you are living in Paris and are from New York you sure has a French outlook. Make it your permant home!


----------



## reed (Jun 19, 2006)

hawki18 said:
			
		

> A typical lib response just cause not everyone leans left you insult us by saying we can not be as smart as you libs, I have said my piece on not seeing  eye to eye with your view.  But not once did I call anyone stupid.  Reed if you are living in Paris and are from New York you sure has a French outlook. Make it your permant home!




 Wow! What is a French Outlook? What is an American outlook? Please let me know I would be very interested. I suppose if I lived in Rome, I'd have an Italien outlook. If I lived in Gnome, I'd have an Alaskian outlook. Ones point of view is not based  on where one lives but based on moral convictions, values, some education and a continual search for the facts and truth. Not easy but its the best we can do. Also, in order know what a French outlook is, for example, it might be useful to read French and even then you're not sure to really know what it is. I wonder how many Frenchmen really know what their country's point of view is?
  Anyway, stay with it. And thanks choosing my permanent home for me. You should come to Paris one of these days. It's a beautiful city. Trust me on this one. Cheers.


----------



## fryke (Jun 19, 2006)

(hawki, reed... don't take this too far, will you? If you want to personally attack each other, you may use private messages.)


----------



## bbloke (Jun 19, 2006)

hawki18 said:
			
		

> A typical lib response just cause not everyone leans left you insult us by saying we can not be as smart as you libs, I have said my piece on not seeing  eye to eye with your view.  But not once did I call anyone stupid.  Reed if you are living in Paris and are from New York you sure has a French outlook. Make it your permant home!


I wasn't sure if this was aimed at me or at reed.  Just in case, I wanted to clarify a few things.  I have not claimed to support any one political group, nor have I insulted a political group.  In fact, I have tried to show I do not casually lump people together into the same category (eg. all thinking or behaving the same way).  I also have not called anyone stupid.

hawki18: I think you should be a little more careful with your comments regarding the French.  Far be it for someone from the UK to stand up for the French (only kidding  ), but I think many would not be happy if it looked like you might be genuinely making sweeping statements about a whole nation/race.  French people are diverse in their views and their behavior, just as Americans are.  Saying "typical French snobbery," and the like, is tantamount to a racial slur. Remember we're all the same species.


----------



## reed (Jun 19, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> (hawki, reed... don't take this too far, will you? If you want to personally attack each other, you may use private messages.)



 You're absolutely right. My apologies. All is well.

 PS Well said bbloke


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 19, 2006)

bbloke said:
			
		

> I wasn't sure if this was aimed at me or at reed.


No, clearly aimed at reed.

I agree completely with your comment about not generalising. I also believe that the similarities between nationalities are far greater than their differences.

Most folks simply want stability, jobs and the freedom to care for their loved ones. For example, the vast majority of Iraqis are not AK47 wielding lunatics, but people who want to do business and raise families. 

The French are not all snobs. Likewise, the British are not all slobs.

Vive la France!


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 19, 2006)

rhisiart said:
			
		

> the British are not all slobs.


No, but there are _way_ too many chavs for my liking!



			
				rhisiart said:
			
		

> Vive la France!


D'accord!


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 19, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> No, but there are _way_ too many chavs for my liking!


Yea, you're right (with the obvious exception of us contributors).


----------



## reed (Jun 19, 2006)

L'amour. Toujours l'amour.

Thanks CaptainQuark,rhisiart,bbloke and gang.This round is on me.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 19, 2006)

Cheers! Your good health, Sir!


----------



## bbloke (Jun 20, 2006)

Bottoms up.   Oh, I'm driving, so I better have a coke.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 20, 2006)

Isn't it dangerous to post and drive?


----------



## bbloke (Jun 20, 2006)

Nah, I find traffic quite scary, so I can look away and type on a laptop on the seat next to me.  Also, I can drive much faster to get to my destination quicker, thereby minimizing the time that I spend on the roads.  All in all much safer.  It's more dangerous to drink and drive, as you see more traffic or see very blurry traffic.   All makes perfect sense, you see?


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 20, 2006)

Where are you driving? Just so I know which bit of the country to _avoid_!?


----------



## reed (Jun 20, 2006)

Try watching England vs Sweden and driving. Silly me, you guys are already in the pubs. Or at least warming up.

 I remember one guy telling me concerning a speeding ticket and that he had to plead his innocence before the judge: "Excuse me your honor, I was so bombed I didn't realize I was  speeding." (Not a true story, I think)
  booze and wheels. Nada.

 Good luck this evening.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 20, 2006)

reed said:
			
		

> L'amour. Toujours l'amour.
> 
> Thanks CaptainQuark,rhisiart,bbloke and gang.This round is on me.


Cheers. Mine's a grande 1664 à la pression SVP.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 20, 2006)

I most definitely SHAN'T be watching football! As an ex-RuggerBugger, I find all this running around and hugging and kissing each other to be utterly boring. A ball's no use to anyone ulness you can pick it up and run with it!


----------



## bbloke (Jun 20, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> ...I find all this running around and hugging and kissing each other to be utterly boring.


 Are you sure you aren't watching one of those "extra" TV channels?


----------



## reed (Jun 20, 2006)

Parc de Prince. Scotland wins here for once. I was there, like a lot of other matches here (thanks to my buddies from Stirling (Rugby Club)...Kenny Logan & co. at the time). Do you remember captainQ? A rare date...seeing how they always lose against les Bleus.
  Hey, who needs to think about GWB when there is a Scottish "3rd halftime." 

 Time to change thread.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jun 20, 2006)

reed said:
			
		

> Parc de Prince. Scotland wins here for once.


A great day!


----------



## reed (Jun 25, 2006)

My my, as if we didn't know............

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060625/ap_on_go_pr_wh/abramoff_white_house


----------



## reed (Jul 4, 2006)

Dear moderators. 
   I think you can chuck this post. It was a silly thread anyway. Macs, hugs, love, animals and kids are more fun then politics. Yes? Cheers


----------



## Rhisiart (Jul 4, 2006)

reed said:
			
		

> Dear moderators. I think you can chuck this post. It was a silly thread anyway. Macs, hugs, love, animals and kids are more fun then politics. Yes? Cheers


Our one-eyed cat, known affectionately as 'Edwardo Shmedo' (he's Yiddish), asks; can we chuck Dubya & Blair instead? 

Molly, our two-eyed cat, says "up yours techno geeks", I want crab meat!


----------



## reed (Jul 4, 2006)

Okay Edwardo....you win. I agree of course, chuck'em both.....but I don't want any plates flying around.
  Crabmeat? My old cat when I was in New York, "Kattles," went bonkers over shrimp. If fact she went bonkers over anything that was not nailed down. "Kooky" our present nutcase here likes flies and any flying thing in the apartment. Eats flowers too sometimes. SIGH!


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jul 4, 2006)

> Our one-eyed cat, known affectionately as 'Edwardo Shmedo' (he's Yiddish), asks; can we chuck Dubya & Blair instead?



Yiddish is a language, not a religious affiliation.  I believe 
Edwardo Shmedo is Jewish(is he circumcised?).


----------



## Rhisiart (Jul 5, 2006)

Mobius Rex said:
			
		

> Yiddish is a language, not a religious affiliation.  I believe Edwardo Shmedo is Jewish(is he circumcised?).


Oops. My reply to your understandable correction MR, appears as to have been censored. 

If this is so, please let it be known for the record, that I not had intended any offence.

Perhaps if I had joked that my one-eyed cat was Anglican, I might have faired better. 

However, a light-hearted reference to Judaism appearing on the same page as an image of Hitler does seem a little unfortunate.


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jul 5, 2006)

> If this is so, please let it be known for the record, that I not had intended any offence.



Hey Dude, absolutely no offense taken, really!  And the Hitler/Bush image is not, in any way, related to my comment.
Sadly, an inherent problem with email is that it's often too easy to get a wrong take on the writers intent.
Since the theme of this thread is GWBush, I felt a gentle(or not so gentle?) reminder of that fact was indicated; I like to vent my feelings regarding Bushie at every opportunity, as well.
Peace, my brother!


----------



## fryke (Jul 5, 2006)

On this subject, I like this image. Seen it on many a sticker in bars and clubs around Europe, so far. -> http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/index_en.php

If you want it as a poster: http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/wanted.jpg


----------



## Rhisiart (Jul 5, 2006)

Mobius Rex said:
			
		

> Hey Dude, absolutely no offense taken, really! Peace, my brother!


Shalom MR. Actually, I was simply providing a disclaimer to the moderator(s) that I am not anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, or for that matter, anti-Zoroastrian. You man, are totally kosher.



			
				fryke said:
			
		

> On this subject, I like this image. Seen it on many a sticker in bars and clubs around Europe, so far. -> http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/index_en.php
> 
> If you want it as a poster: http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/wanted.jpg


Try these:


----------



## reed (Jul 6, 2006)

Here are four sites that may or may not have anything to do with this thread. Hmmm. Catch my eye.... 
   Please don't get angry if you don't agree. I'm just giving some data that you can take or leave. Cheers.


http://www.counterpunch.org/

http://www.truthout.org/

http://mediamatters.org/

http://www.markfiore.com/


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jul 8, 2006)

> On this subject, I like this image. Seen it on many a sticker in bars and clubs around Europe, so far. -> http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/index_en.php
> 
> If you want it as a poster: http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/wanted.jpg



Fryke, I'm really tempted to put something like this on the back of my car, but the risk of getting run off the road or having my car trashed by some knuckle-dragging, spittle-dripping, neanderthal Bushite is too great!


----------



## bbloke (Jul 10, 2006)

I thought this video of My United States of Whateva was not bad...


----------



## reed (Jul 11, 2006)

Not bad bbloke....checkout About.com ( select political humor/Bush/Cheney, etc.) The Bush quotes are the best. Hey,there is SOOOOO much material! Cheers


----------

