kingbee kingbee

Why Bush Should Be Bashed

Why Bush Should Be Bashed

It's Nothin Personal

as fiercely as it disputes the left being the political faction which represents all mankind, in the depths of its frozen solid stone heart, the right knows this to be the truth.

the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

as those on the right stagger from one episode of debilitating overwhelming outrage to the next--an infliction that seems to strike on average seven times in any 24 hour period--a little-undestood autonomic self-preservation mechanism kicks into overdrive causing them to rapidly transfer as much of the overload out into the atmosphere where it's instinctively focused onto any convenient target that comes to mind.  it's an amazingly simple process yet should it somehow malfunction, it means an obliterative death by spontaneous concurrent explosion and implosion (somewhat akin to the sad end visited upon the wicked witch in 'wizard of oz' only a lot messier). 

as the median age of the us population increases, more targets are required...thus explaining the ever increasing number of screeds, rants and vituperative harangues directed at 'wacko leaders' (sic) of the left.

sadly 99.99999% of these misperceived targets aren't leaders of any type, even in the broadest sense of that term.  of the remainder, only about 1% are even mildly wacko.  those who've studied this phenomenon find it wryly amusing that an estimated 30% of  those who most frequently characterize the objects of their rage as being 'wacko' are, themselves, certifiably so (a figure that jumps to nearly 3 times that rate for their own official leaders).

one obvious consequence of all this wildly discharged antagonism can best be summed up in the venerable aphorism which claims that 'everyone is a wacko left-wing leader but me and thee...and i have my doubts about thee'.   should this trend continue, the most conservative (heheh) projection is that everyone in the world will have been condemned as one of the 'left's wacko leaders' by sometime in june 2006.

this leaves the left with very few individuals to whom they can vent their frustration without being castigated as 'mean-spirited' or accused of 'ad hominum' attacks.   fortunately the 2004 elections ensured at least a dozen individuals whom, by virtue of having been voted into office, are legitimate wacko leaders.  chief among them is george w. bush.  others include dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, paul wolfowitz, richard perle, john bolton, tom delay and bill frist.  additionally there are those who pull their strings such as the rev jerry falwell, pat robertson, bill kristol, the guy who funded the swiftboat liars for truth and some lighweights such as rush limbaugh and the fox news pundits. 

in conclusion, should you discover yourself conferring unwarranted 'wacko leader' status upon some celebrity, please take a few moments to 'get real' as the kids say on the street...and remember, sooner or later some other wacko is likely to condemn you for being one too.

 

12,686 views 38 replies
Reply #26 Top
Call me silly, but I read all that and translated it as: "Yeah, we're angry but we don't know why and can't really justify our anger in any rational way, and that's why it's okay to direct our anger at the president. He may not really be responsible for the the things we're angry about, and even if he was we're having real difficulty proving that he's repsonsible, but dammit, he's the President, and that's reason enough to focus our anger on him!"

Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out what your real problems are, identify the root causes of those problems, and then deal directly with those root causes? This whole theory of "we don't even bother blaming the politicians first anymore, we just get angry at them because they're such handy targets" doesn't really do much for me.
Reply #27 Top

Call me silly, but I read all that and translated it as: "Yeah, we're angry but we don't know why and can't really justify our anger in any rational way, and that's why it's okay to direct our anger at the president. He may not really be responsible for the the things we're angry about, and even if he was we're having real difficulty proving that he's repsonsible, but dammit, he's the President, and that's reason enough to focus our anger on him!"

Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out what your real problems are, identify the root causes of those problems, and then deal directly with those root causes? This whole theory of "we don't even bother blaming the politicians first anymore, we just get angry at them because they're such handy targets" doesn't really do much for me.

Yes it would make more sense.  No they will not follow it.

Reply #28 Top
when did the left represent all mankind? I never got that memo!


sorta a play on words that relies on 'represent' having more than a single meaning.

in the following example, you = every member of the set of all humans currently alive.

if whenever someone other than you does or says something with which you disagree and which can possibly be construed as being rooted in liberal or leftist thought,it's inevitable the left will ultimately represent everyone.

it's merely an extension of one parent asking another: 'do you know YOUR son or daughter is engaged in __________' (fill blank with whatever infraction you wish)
Reply #29 Top
eye juss luv itt wen yer irreverent, after all you be da king


better irreverent than irrelevant. (what's grey, has four legs, big ears anda trunk? ats irright )
Reply #30 Top
Call me silly, but I read all that and translated it as: "Yeah, we're angry but we don't know why and can't really justify our anger in any rational way, and that's why it's okay to direct our anger at the president. He may not really be responsible for the the things we're angry about, and even if he was we're having real difficulty proving that he's repsonsible, but dammit, he's the President, and that's reason enough to focus our anger on him!"


silly stutefish. you shoulda uploaded some of the comments previous to yours into the translator. or perhaps i shoulda just come out and said: there are plenty of official wacko leaders of both sides that it hardly makes sense to appoint more. unless one is authorized or licensed to do so.
Reply #31 Top

No they will not follow it

even tho i know your prediction is based on something totally different than what i intended, you're right.

barring a catastrophe which wipes out the human race or leaves only one survivor,  you can be sure of more people being involuntarily annointed or appointed wacko leftist leaders.

Reply #32 Top
barring a catastrophe which wipes out the human race or leaves only one survivor, you can be sure of more people being involuntarily annointed or appointed wacko leftist leaders.


Well i'm fairly conservative/moderate, but can I be next anyway?
Reply #33 Top
it means an obliterative death by spontaneous concurrent explosion and implosion (somewhat akin to the sad end visited upon the wicked witch in 'wizard of oz' only a lot messier).


Yeah... Kind of like what happened to all of Spinal Tap's drummers?

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #34 Top
Like it or not, these people can get attention, and their drones listen to them. That's why activist organizations get them to speak for them. That's why they end up on the stage at the Democratic convention, or sitting in the Presidential box by Carter.

Like it or not, Hollywood is a 527 of substantial influence. Nitpick over the word leader if you want, but they have to be addressed in some fashion, and people do follow where they lead


i don't know how i managed to miss this but i did and i apologize for not responding to it earlier.

i'm now wondering if all that rhetorical condemnation of the left's purported condescending attitude towards average citizens shouldnt be reassigned.

i think it's safe to say one would have to be pretty stupid to allow a celebrity to influence one's vote. while there may actually be one or two or ten people who are fall into that group, i get the impression yall believe it's must more common as an ordinary citizen. i find it presumptious and insulting
Reply #35 Top
Well i'm fairly conservative/moderate, but can I be next anyway?


if nominated, will you serve? if not, will you serve anyway? if you answer 'yes' to the 2nd question, you could be our next wacko leader.
Reply #36 Top
Yeah... Kind of like what happened to all of Spinal Tap's drummers?


exactly! (well, except for the tap's drummers possibly receiving an advance against royalties)
Reply #37 Top

think it's safe to say one would have to be pretty stupid to allow a celebrity to influence one's vote. while there may actually be one or two or ten people who are fall into that group, i get the impression yall believe it's must more common as an ordinary citizen. i find it presumptious and insulting

If this is true (and I am not questioning it), what does that say for the Hollywood elite who think they can sway votes?  The Blind leading the blind comes to mind.