George W Bush makes joke about lack of WMDs

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm mock him for making unfunny jokes.

Why don't you mock some people in this thread?

Great idea.

 

Well at least he's consistent... he's just as bad of a comedian as he is a president

 

thebigjig is THE SUQ LOL2004~!!!!!...

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm mock him for making unfunny jokes.

Why don't you mock some people in this thread?

I do.

 

Regularly.

 

I thought you knew that.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

I have friends that are over there fighting in Iraq, and yes I was offended when I heard about these jokes... in my opinion, when you have a war that has divided the country the way it has, a controversial war that will honestly be debated for years to come, making light of a very serious situation is just kind of disgusting... you're a complete idiot if you compare the president of the united states to David Letterman... Letterman didnt fucking send the troops over there to die. These jokes were just as tasteless if he had made a few jokes about suicide bombers

 

and of course, the jokes werent even funny anyway. Those of you that actually laughed and thought "oh my god that shit is sooooo funny" shows that if anyone needs to look into getting a sense of humor, it's you. Bush reminds me of the type that would listen to Rodney Carrington (the most annoying human being on the face of the planet) and think he was the God of Comedy

 

It just simply wasn't funny... both in the offensibly unfunny and just... not... funny categories

[Guest thebigjig]

I'm mock him for making unfunny jokes.

Why don't you mock some people in this thread?

Great idea.

 

Well at least he's consistent... he's just as bad of a comedian as he is a president

 

thebigjig is THE SUQ LOL2004~!!!!!...

SUQ?! what the hell does that mean?!

 

I'll just go the safe route and respond with...

 

 

your mother

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

No.

 

YOUR Mom...

[Guest thebigjig]

No.

 

YOUR Mom...

no no... I checked, and I believe its YOUR mom

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Perhaps we're related, then it will be OUR mom...

[Slickster 0]

On the other hand, late-night comics like Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, and Craig Kilborn have been making jokes about the same thing (much funnier jokes, admittedly) for months now. No conservative I know of has said anything like what you lot are postulating. And no liberal has attacked them for daring to mock the war effort.

Right, but their JOB is to make fun of things. The leader of our country (and the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces) should not be making those kinds of comments, satirical convention or not. He could have talked about ANYTHING else, but instead he chose to make this controversial decision.

 

Let's try it this way: let's say that you're a fan of a sports team...let's say the Cincinnati Bengals. Early in the year, the coach hypes up the fans and says that this season will be a great one, that we'll accomplish all our goals, etc. You're excited about the season's prospects.

 

The season starts, and the team has a mediocre first few months. Meanwhile, the coach keeps stressing that the team WILL get the job done and that they WILL make the playoffs. You have faith in the coach and think that he can turn the team around, but you're a little less sure of it then you were before.

 

It gets down to Week 13, and the team is 3-8. Going into the game, the coach addresses a press conference, saying :"we'll get the job done, and we'll...aw, who am I kidding? We haven't done anything this year!" The room erupts with laughter.

 

How do you think his players would feel?

How would you feel?

'Cause that's the way it appears many people on these forums felt after those comments were made.

[Guest MikeSC]

On the other hand, late-night comics like Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, and Craig Kilborn have been making jokes about the same thing (much funnier jokes, admittedly) for months now. No conservative I know of has said anything like what you lot are postulating. And no liberal has attacked them for daring to mock the war effort.

Right, but their JOB is to make fun of things. The leader of our country (and the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces) should not be making those kinds of comments, satirical convention or not. He could have talked about ANYTHING else, but instead he chose to make this controversial decision.

 

Let's try it this way: let's say that you're a fan of a sports team...let's say the Cincinnati Bengals. Early in the year, the coach hypes up the fans and says that this season will be a great one, that we'll accomplish all our goals, etc. You're excited about the season's prospects.

 

The season starts, and the team has a mediocre first few months. Meanwhile, the coach keeps stressing that the team WILL get the job done and that they WILL make the playoffs. You have faith in the coach and think that he can turn the team around, but you're a little less sure of it then you were before.

 

It gets down to Week 13, and the team is 3-8. Going into the game, the coach addresses a press conference, saying :"we'll get the job done, and we'll...aw, who am I kidding? We haven't done anything this year!" The room erupts with laughter.

 

How do you think his players would feel?

How would you feel?

'Cause that's the way it appears many people on these forums felt after those comments were made.

I'd laugh, personally. If you can't admit that something hasn't worked like you thought it would, then there is a big problem.

-=Mike

[The Amazing Rando 0]

I don't usually come in here... but there is a big difference between a sports team and the leader of the country.

 

The players would just be "meh" ...cause win or lose they are getting paid hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars.

 

 

 

I don't agree or disagree with the 'jokes' the President made. For a laugh - the searching jokes were fine. As for his 'phone call' thing - that was just a blatant attack disguised as a joke.

 

 

Last year, over 30 percent of the United States population thought that WMDs had been found. The President even SAID IT last May. I know, I know...mistakes can be made. But when you are looking for WMDs, you should really double-check to make sure it's the truth first. So he jumped the gun....like I said...mistakes happen. I have no real problem with it.. Since we haven't found them -- i'm sure that % has dropped...but it's still there. What are those people thinking? They are probably also a part of the voting public, which frightens me.

 

But whatever...like I said, I don't come in here very often, but this seemed to stick out to me.

[ANKLELOCK 0]

Has the Democratic Party officially changed its name to Anti-Bush Party yet?

 

I mean half the time I forget who is running for the Democrats. All this talk about "bad Bush" and people forget............um......Jason....Jeff...John Kerry(forgot his name for a second) doesn't have the best track record either.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't usually come in here... but there is a big difference between a sports team and the leader of the country.

 

The players would just be "meh" ...cause win or lose they are getting paid hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars.

 

 

 

I don't agree or disagree with the 'jokes' the President made. For a laugh - the searching jokes were fine. As for his 'phone call' thing - that was just a blatant attack disguised as a joke.

 

 

Last year, over 30 percent of the United States population thought that WMDs had been found. The President even SAID IT last May. I know, I know...mistakes can be made. But when you are looking for WMDs, you should really double-check to make sure it's the truth first. So he jumped the gun....like I said...mistakes happen. I have no real problem with it.. Since we haven't found them -- i'm sure that % has dropped...but it's still there. What are those people thinking? They are probably also a part of the voting public, which frightens me.

 

But whatever...like I said, I don't come in here very often, but this seemed to stick out to me.

Thing is ... the search is hardly over.

 

Again, the pro-investigation side said it'd take YEARS to find them.

 

It's not going to be quick now -- especially since we do have other issues to deal with.

 

Though, I do agree with one assessment from an editor on Nat'l Review: It might not be a bad idea to simply cut ALL utilities to Fallulah. Cut 'em off entirely.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Has the Democratic Party officially changed its name to Anti-Bush Party yet?

 

I mean half the time I forget who is running for the Democrats. All this talk about "bad Bush" and people forget............um......Jason....Jeff...John Kerry(forgot his name for a second) doesn't have the best track record either.

Kerry, honestly, has a serious problem. He got the nomination because people "thought he was electable". There is no passion, no deep commitment, no belief in him --- they just think he can win.

 

But what happens when things look bad? Every candidate has that point where things look REAL bad for him. Will his support stick around then? As bad a candidate as he was, Gore had people who truly believed that HE was the best choice for the job.

 

Kerry has people who feel that ANYBODY is a good choice.

 

I've never heard of a candidate winning with what appears to be such shallow levels of support (and even if he does win, it won't do the Democrats much good as he doesn't appear to have anything resembling coattails).

 

This is a mirror replay to the Dole v Clinton race. All Dole had was that people didn't like Clinton and wanted Bob in office. Dole couldn't make too many criticisms about Clinton's policies because he didn't really do a heck of a lot to stop them in the Senate.

 

Again, I don't think Kerry, genuinely, has a shot in hell in November. He has a record that is quite attackable and a base of support that isn't so much in favor of HIM as they are opposed to the President. That won't drive out the vote and it won't help him when times are tough. And he doesn't really seem to have a lot of charisma and it doesn't appear that the Dems are terribly energetic about him.

 

Let's put it this way: He had probably the LEAST enthusiastic support of ANY of the Democratic candidates. The DNC has to be careful at their Convention because there are several Dems who can EASILY overshadow Kerry --- and there will be questions as to "Why should we elect him when it will simply make it take longer for Hillary/whomever to run?"

 

The Democrats had a shockingly weak field of candidates. And, odds are, Kerry was the strongest of the bunch. But, the bunch was exceptionally weak.

-=Mike

...And thus ends my serious political analysis. I shall now return to shallow insights and jokes...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Actually, as one of your detractors or something along those lines, I thought that post was very well-put.

 

I believe, right now, the President is defeatable. We'll see how things change or don't change come November. Independents don't like Bush that much right now, though, and I think that'll be a big decision maker if all the Republicans vote for their guy and all the Democrats vote for their guy and we have a close race.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, as one of your detractors or something along those lines, I thought that post was very well-put.

 

I believe, right now, the President is defeatable. We'll see how things change or don't change come November. Independents don't like Bush that much right now, though, and I think that'll be a big decision maker if all the Republicans vote for their guy and all the Democrats vote for their guy and we have a close race.

Is Bush beatable? Probably as much as Clinton was beatable in 1996. There was a very strong anti-Clinton group at the time.

 

Was the group of contenders to the throne put up against Bush capable of beating him? Like in 1996, probably not. Edwards has not much of a record and, well, the way he made his money could have caused him problems. Dean was WAY off the map. Ditto Kucinich. Gephardt has never seemed to have much traction nationally in any of his previous candidacy bids.

 

I'm not sure who the next big thing for the Dems are. I know they THINK it's Hillary right now, but I honestly don't think she is what they need. She's more polarizing than Bush and, like Kerry presently, doesn't seem to have all that much charisma.

 

I'm, honestly, expecting them to try and get McCain to jump sides and be their standard-bearer in 2008. I don't see any Democrats, right now, who can legitimately threaten the President. Bill Richardson is a possibility, though.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Is Bush beatable? Probably as much as Clinton was beatable in 1996.

So why does his favorability match his Dad's?

 

Edwards has not much of a record and, well, the way he made his money could have caused him problems.

 

It still cracks me up that you think that's a potential problem compared to ways other politicians have made money, and I'm not just talking about Bush or conservatives, though that's included in there somewhere.

 

The greatest effect you've predictred Edwards' past presents is that small town people will vote against him because of trial lawyers have taken doctors out of their town. That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as to why people would do that when voting for the President. This isn't City Council we're talking about here.

 

I'm not sure who the next big thing for the Dems are.

 

Makes sense. It will likely be someone coming out of nowhere and stirring the pot for attention. This party doesn't often breed people to go out and win elections in the future, and when they do, it never works. I would have told you in January that the San Fran mayor was a strong contender for a Washington-based office in the future. Now that he shot himself in the foot? Hah!

 

I know they THINK it's Hillary right now

 

I don't know how many people think it's Hillary. I believe the vast majority of the Dems have realized that your side really, really hate the Clintons and will come down on us like a ton of bricks if we ever try to put them in a role of significance again beyond Hillary extending her current term.

 

Go through the cries of "Why won't the Clintons ever LEAVE?!", and look to the source of the constant Clinton media frenzy, and what you'll find is unabashedly conservative media outlets speculating on a return of the Clintons. Sure, Bill still drops in now and then to make a speech and fire up a crowd, but all these claims that somehow the left can hang onto the legacy of the 90s by working the Clintons in over and over, that's just bullshit.

[NoCalMike 0]

Go through the cries of "Why won't the Clintons ever LEAVE?!", and look to the source of the constant Clinton media frenzy, and what you'll find is unabashedly conservative media outlets speculating on a return of the Clintons. Sure, Bill still drops in now and then to make a speech and fire up a crowd, but all these claims that somehow the left can hang onto the legacy of the 90s by working the Clintons in over and over, that's just bullshit.

Not to mention Dick Morris on Fox everynight for his daily installment of "OMG CONSPIRACY Hillary hoping Kerry loses big so she can be the savior in 2008 blaaaah fucking blah"