Bush tries to think

i feel sorry for him. i think he's overloaded. he probably is having a hard time digesting all the new words that he's learned since taking office. i think during his last speech, the mispronunciation of the word "nuclear" set him in a tail spin.

 

So far as I can tell, republicans choose their presidents precisely on their *inability* to think. So don't take him literally.

The shrub's natural brain has been a vinegarette for quite a while, and his electronic one removed after the debates. Reagan's popularity with republican's increased as his senility progressed.

 

This is a perfect example topic to compare with Rule #1


#1: Attack Your Opponent (Republican or Independent)
If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, If you can arouse his/her anger, you will have them on familiar ground where they can be beat. Your aim is to make your opponents stop using those pesky facts and figures to win an argument -- everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so they are doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Dittohead (meaning he's a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell "Republican" and "America" with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK -- but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansman, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him.

Even though the site gives fake stories, the topic of this thread is angled as most (not all) here on PC slam the president every chance given.. Rule #1 just explains that to the non-libri-cons..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 1 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]312802[/snapback]</div>

pot.... kettle.... black.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 1 2006, 12:55 PM) [snapback]312802[/snapback]</div>

You mean like how you tend to tar "liberals" with the same brush? Bah - I believe that's called hypocrisy. Any the onion is a satire site - its not meant to true, just satirical.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 1 2006, 12:55 PM) [snapback]312802[/snapback]</div>

Guess you missed the part of the satiric article that takes a shot at Nancy Pelosi & other congressional Democrats for their tendency to immediatly slam Bush for anything he does or says.

If that part hadn't been in there, it would have been an attack on Bush. With that as the closer, it gets both sides. That's well-done satire.

 

lol! I love the Onion. We all know they write fake news right? Just like the Daily Show with Jon Steward and the Colbert Report, which I love too. Did I say I love fake news?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ScottY @ Sep 1 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]312840[/snapback]</div>

And don't forget Fox News!

 

The dig on Pelosi was my favorite part! And I'm a "left wing nut", as you right wing nuts might say.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 1 2006, 01:45 PM) [snapback]312846[/snapback]</div>

Actually some of their straight-up reporting is ok however their opinion is generally of the spittle-flying, highly partisan sort. Roger Ailes is pretty much a partisan gunslinger.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 1 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]312802[/snapback]</div>

Or Democrat. Especially Democrat.

Just ONE example.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 1 2006, 12:55 PM) [snapback]312802[/snapback]</div>

And here is another one for you
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/columnist...i/article6.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Sep 2 2006, 07:34 AM) [snapback]313012[/snapback]</div>

Joe Mariani again.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Sep 1 2006, 01:26 PM) [snapback]312828[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol:

they're so worked up and foaming at the mouth about any criticism of the president whatsoever that they can't determine what's real and what's a freakin' JOKE...

you'd think the wording of the article would have given it away at the very least

or maybe the fact that it's published by the ONION (oh come on)

or the fact that really, that event they describe never happened

and if it takes more evidence than that... :blink:

apparently some people are unable to follow a clear path of evidence. wait, do we need to go back to how americans need science education to learn how to think?

 

The Onion is very good at making fun of EVERYONE, and I think that's why it rubs them the wrong way... too liberal in their fairness, and these righties would rather make fun of everyone but themselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 1 2006, 11:11 AM) [snapback]312864[/snapback]</div>

Ummm....how does one TELL when they are doing "straight-up reporting?" Like when a Fox-employed cousin of Dubya's called the 2000 election in his favor, maybe? <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Sep 2 2006, 01:36 PM) [snapback]313100[/snapback]</div>

Nah - thats all spin & bs. When the Fox anchor starts editorializing then you know you are getting fed the "talking points". I am talking about their "Cat in a tree" & "fat woman needs crane to leave apartment " stuff - you know, tabloid schtick.