Bush: making political satirists obsolete since 2000
Until recently, I didn't think anyone liked Bush. All of this changed a
few months ago when I spoke to someone who not only didn't think Bush was
a moron, but that he was doing a good job. I did the usual probes
for sarcasm and eventually came away empty-handed. It looked like this was
the genuine article:
I was excited, so naturally I had to ask the obvious question: "why did you
vote for Bush?" The response: "because I'm a republican."
I suddenly felt a sharp stabbing pain in my frontal lobe; it was the
unmistakable feeling you get when you walk away from a 30 minute conversation
with a yammering co-worker--the feeling you get when you know that you just got
dumber. Because "I'm a republican." What the hell does that mean?
So just because you're a republican you're supposed to vote for whichever
asshole your party selects as your candidate? Why can't people disassociate
themselves from their party? There was a unanimous outcry from
everyone when dumb shit Trent Lott gave the thumbs up to Thurmond, why weren't
republicans supporting him? If you're going to justify your voting of
a moron into office with a blanket statement like "I'm a republican," why
not be consistent and stand behind your party all the time?
I'm tired of people defending Bush. He's a moron. Period. What difference
does it make if he graduated from Harvard, Yale or MIT for that matter?
Just because you graduate from an accredited university doesn't mean that
you're suddenly void of giving a bad speech. It doesn't make you impervious
to mistakes.
I'm tired of people saying "just because he talks slow doesn't mean he's
stupid." Bullshit. There's talking slow, then there's just plain
ineptitude. It's almost impossible to do a critical
analysis of his speech because the man practically satirizes himself. Bush
proponents have adopted a kinder word for inept: "Bushism." That's stupid.
Why is it a screw up if anyone other than Bush makes
a mistake, but a "Bushism" if he does it? When Clinton screwed up, nobody
called it a "Clintonism." They
called him a dumbass (and if they weren't, I sure as hell was). I mean, talking
slow is one thing but to not know the difference between "hostile" and
"hostage," or "prosecute" and "persecute" is not a "Bushism," it's
extra-strength dumb. Before you
email me "BUT MADOX HE DOESN'T WRITE HIS OWN SPEECHES LOL," consider the
following quote:
For some reason I trust him. Okay, so maybe I'm being too hard on the
guy. After all, he was appointed as the leader of this country.
So here are all the things that Bush has done to impress the hell out
of me:
All sarcasm aside, you could probably infer that I'm not a republican
by reading this article. I'm not a democrat either. Don't email me
your stupid republican/democrat jokes, I don't care. The next person
who says "HEY MADDOX YOU KNOW WHAT GOP STANDS FOR? GRINCHES ON PARADE LOL"
gets punched in the face.
No, I'm not a democrat or a republican. I'm just a guy who's tired of
the bullshit. Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that
Bush has gone on record saying:
"There ought to be limits to freedom"? He
publicly said that in reference to a
website
that criticized him (listen to the clip yourself).
What business does this man have serving as president of the United States?
I know that there should be limits to freedom like when someone
yells "fire" in a crowded theater, but never against political
criticism--quit emailing me.
Bush is by far the worst president ever appointed by the Supreme Court.
It's almost as if the presidents try to outdo each other by being shittier
every year. You're being duped.
Note: before you send me hate mail, let me know if you're a monster truck
rally fan in the subject line so I can ignore your opinions more
conveniently. Thanks.
I was talking to an authentic Bush-lover. For the first
time in the 2+ years he was appointed to office, I finally found one of
these elusive, almost mythic people.
"People make suggestions on what to say all the time. I'll give you an
example; I don't read what's handed to me. People say, 'Here, here's your
speech, or here's an idea for a speech.' They're changed. Trust me." -George
W. Bush in an interview with the New York Times, March 15, 2000.
1,037,623 Bush advocates agree: there ought to be limits to freedom.