Wednesday, August 09, 2006

And that's the way it is August 9, 2006.



August 9, 2006 is quite a significant day. "Why?" you may ask. Well, it is the 32nd anniversary of the day one Richard Milhouse Nixon 'cut and ran' from his own presidential post as a result of his low approval rating. "But how is that significant for today?" you're probably asking. Well, let's compare Mr. Nixon with Mr. Coo-Coo Bananas in charge right now and see for ourselves.

A: Nixon was re-elected for a second term amid many protests and had low approval ratings in the middle of that second term.
George W. Bush was also re-elected (well, actually just elected for the first time) for a second term amid huge protests and has very low approval ratings within the middle of this his second term.

B: Nixon kept America in an unjust war inwhich atrocious war crimes were carried out and that divided the country down the middle all just to support some hidden political agenda.
George W. Bush STARTED an unjust war inwhich atrocious war crimes are carried out and that has divided the country down the middle once again all just to support a hidden political agenda.

C: Many damning scandals were uncovered within Nixon's administration such as the Watergate break-in, the recorded tapes of Nixon making anti-semetic remarks, and his using tax payers money to "silence" those who opposed him like Jane Fonda or John Lennon all lead to a low approval rating.
Many of George Bush's scandals are in plain view such as the Abu Grahb prison atrocities, the torture done at the Guantanamo Bay prison, a huge enough anti-Latino stance that the building of a wall along the U.S./Mexican border is deemed necessary for some reason (and don't say "to stop illegal immigration" because we all know that's bullshit), the start of a massive war in Iraq (despite no evidence of any destructive weapons) which has escalated into a situation in the Middle East many journalists are dubbing as World War III, etc......... etc........... all have lead to the president's low approval rating.

And yet, there is a fundamental difference between these two men that should disturb everyone. By August 9th, 1974 of the second term Nixon was gone. However, here it is today August 9th, 2006 of Bush's second term and HE'S STILL IN OFFICE!!!!! Surely if there was the equivalent of Woodward, Bernstein, or Deepthroat around today, George Bush would be resigning in disgrace right now. But, nope, that hasn't happened. In fact, he'll probably be still around August 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, even as far as January 20, 2009. Who knows what crazy or annoying or downright criminal scandals will occur between now and then because Dubya is as hard to get rid of as the worst form of cancer.

How is he managing to stay in office???



Oh. I guess that answers that.

I'd like to end this post with a favourite comic strip of mine. Sure it was made a whole 20 years ago and the George Bush it mentions is George Bush senior who was only Vice President at the time. But, I think this particular strip applies as much to the present day Bush as it did to the old Bush. Enjoy!



Have fun in the coming apocolypse everyone.

27 comments:

  1. Terrible.

    >Many damning scandals were uncovered within Nixon's administration such as the Watergate break-in, the recorded tapes of Nixon making anti-semetic remarks, and his using tax payers money to "silence" those who opposed him like Jane Fonda or John Lennon all lead to a low approval rating.

    You're forgetting the fact that Lennon and Fonda were evil doucebags.

    > huge enough anti-Latino stance that the building of a wall along the U.S./Mexican border is deemed necessary for some reason (and don't say "to stop illegal immigration" because we all know that's bullshit),

    Are you nuts? Bush is one of hte most pro-latino presidents in recent years! As a latino, it's plain to see that the man, (and former president of the biggest latino state in America) has a huge respect for our culture, moreso than John Kerry. He speaks spanish, is against the wall idea and wanted a moderate solution to the immigration problem. His party has some anti-latino tendencies but he sure as heel doesn't! If he was so anti-latino, why did he hire so many to his administration?!?

    >How is he managing to stay in office???

    Becasue he's a great president.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Only "great"? Try "GREATEST", Mr. Garrido.

    Do you hate America or something?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "You're forgetting the fact that Lennon and Fonda were evil doucebags."

    because murdering thousands of people and breaking the law is nowhere near as bad as what they did.

    we need another deep throat, pronto.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A great president?

    He and the Republican-controlled house and senate took us from surplus to the largest deficit we've ever had.

    He wants to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution through a gay marriage ban.

    He uses his first veto to ensure that nearly half a million unused in-vitro embryos will be destroyed rather than donated to scientific research - embryos that he believes are human beings and therefore should be protected. Even I can't find the end of that circular logic.

    I could go on, but you get the point. The only way anyone can consider this guy a great president is by completely ignoring the facts and drinking deep from the conservative Kool-aid pitcher.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jorge, you're 17. And I think you live in Canada. You have no idea what is happening in this country.

    Bush is not Pro-latino. He wants to assasinate Chavez. He will use latinos when it is to his advantage, and that is all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >He wants to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution through a gay marriage ban

    Good.

    >He uses his first veto to ensure that nearly half a million unused in-vitro embryos will be destroyed rather than donated to scientific research - embryos that he believes are human beings and therefore should be protected. Even I can't find the end of that circular logic.

    Good. Human experimentation like that is immoral.

    >Jorge, you're 17. And I think you live in Canada. You have no idea what is happening in this country.

    We have the same news sources, dumbass. Any policy of this administartion, minor or major, ir resported on CNN, Fox News, the Internet, MSNBC, The Daily Show, and the moon. I go there all the time, I live close to Detroit. (You're pobably argue that Detroit is too propserpous to reveal what a NAZI Bush is)

    >Bush is not Pro-latino. He wants to assasinate Chavez.

    Good, because Chavez is a leftist nut job, but it was Pat Robertsons who suggested assasination. I know Bush and Chavez hate each other, but he's relatively easy to despise, since he's such a stupid dangerous asshole.

    >He will use latinos when it is to his advantage, and that is all.

    Yeah, his decade long secret plan to identify with us and our culture by learning our language, surrounding himself with us in his administrations, and being quite liberal with immigration is paying off! Moron.

    Kerry was the kind of Liberal who pretended to love us (and blacks) and tell us how mistreated we are and treating us like retarded children so we'd vote for him since he's "progressive." Bush is real.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jorge Garrido said...
    >He wants to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution through a gay marriage ban

    Good.



    Wow...tell you what, Jorge, how would you like us to go back to interracial marriage being illegal?


    Anyway...good post, David. Also, I'd like to say that no, I was not saying that the art of Family Guy is good...go back and read the post again. I tried to post something to that effect, but evidently the comment moderation on John K's blog is going to be stricter than he was letting on.

    Anyway...I have no idea what Bush needs to do to get impeached. Eat babies on the White House lawn? He'd probably get praised for saving them from stem cell research.

    ReplyDelete
  8. interracial marriage still provided a mother AND a father for children, while gay marriage substitutes one sex for the other... like men and women are both the same.
    they aren't.
    as a society we strive for the best(especially for our children) and the best guides for a child is a man and a woman as parents.
    why?
    because that child will be living in a world full of women AND men.

    i think gays should be allowed all of the rights of any other citizen in regards to health insurance and legal rights, but i'm not going to let what i know is the best situation for a child be eclipsed by the long sad story of the rights of gays who want to set aside everything we know about child development and formative development of identity because two moms are saying they are just as good as a mom and a dad.

    they aren't.

    at the end of the day the left hangs their hat on evlution and then throws everything we know about evolution because a gay couple is crying to want to have the same status as the traditional family.
    sorry, i care about kids more.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay...first of all, not all marriages are for the purpose of procreation. My grandmother got re-married in her 70's.

    Secondly, all REPUTABLE studies have shown that there is no difference between children raised by one sex and children raised by both. It is not as if kids raised by lesbians never see a man in their lives, or don't have other male relatives around.

    Third...if your argument is that all children should have a mother and a father, why not just take kids away from single parents? It makes just as much legal sense.

    Last...gay families will always raise children. Always have. My partner and I have a son. She was married to an abusive man before splitting from him and winding up with me, son in tow. Now, we're going to have to spend several thousand dollars doing a second-parent adoption just so I can maintain custody of him if she were to die. As it is now, I have NO right to have any say in his life, and if something were to happen to my partner, I'd have to fight her conservative family for any right to even see him, which isn't just wrong from MY side...it also rips him away from his parent. Legally.

    Of course, my girlfriend could just marry a guy in Vegas one night and he could have rights to our son. No problem.

    Marriage rights are about legal protections, and that includes legal protections for the children of gay families. Which, legally married or not, will continue to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  10. One thing about Jorge; he provides a great example of the homophobic, regressive, neaderthal thought processes all too prevalent among conservatives these days. It doesn't bother him that people are discriminated against regularly, as long as he's not a member of the group experiencing the discrimination. And he uses the classic conservative ploy of throwing in irrelevant comments about what Kerry (or Clinton, or whoever) did that's "even worse" in an attempt to deflect criticism against Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Bush is real."

    yeah, a real asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think George Bush has some sort of psychic power that generates an aura which prevents people from seeing him as the madman he is. This aura is big enough to cover the US and parts of Canada (at least the part Jorge lives in). Not all americans are suceptible to this power, of course.
    This theory explains why everyone else in the world thinks your country is going bonkers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. >Wow...tell you what, Jorge, how would you like us to go back to interracial marriage being illegal.

    Are you against polygamy? What about an old perv marrying a kid?

    If you are, then I could say the same thing to you. Nobody thinks anybody should be allowed to marry anything, everyone thinks marriage should have some restrictions. The debate is about what those restrictions are. Don't throw that discrimination argument at me, since you probably are for SOME marriage descriptions.

    In a debate about gay marriage, we can only debate the REASONS why it should or shouldn't be restricted, not the CONCEPT of restriction.

    >Anyway...I have no idea what Bush needs to do to get impeached. Eat babies on the White House lawn? He'd probably get praised for saving them from stem cell research.

    #1 way to end debate on the merits of a world leader, kids: Hypothetically portray him doing something morally despicable.

    "Did you know William Taft raped little boys? He probably did it to save them from the draft, which he was against!" Now THAT'S satire.

    >
    at the end of the day the left hangs their hat on evlution and then throws everything we know about evolution because a gay couple is crying to want to have the same status as the traditional family.

    A big part of the reason they want to get married is for tax purposes, anyway. I don't see why civil unions, a perfectly good NON-RELIGIOUS alternative, isn't good enough. A piece of paper doens't mean anything, marriage is a sacred union. (Don't get me started on divorce. As Greg Giraldo said, the sanctity of marriage was destroyed when you could get married by Elvis in a drive thru chapel in Vegas nad get divorced next door. Assholes.)

    >Okay...first of all, not all marriages are for the purpose of procreation. My grandmother got re-married in her 70's. .

    The purpose of Marriage is love, but in a religious context. Marriage is a religous expression of love and unity. If you're getting married by a preacher you should abide by the rules of the religious the preacher lives by Judaism and Islam are in the same boat as Christianity when it comes to gays. It'd be like celebrating Christmas without being allowed to talk about Jes...oh wait.

    >Third...if your argument is that all children should have a mother and a father, why not just take kids away from single parents? It makes just as much legal sense.

    We're arguing that the IDEAL situation is for a mother AND a father, and gay marriage makes it easier to not go by that ideal. I don't like the idea of civorce, but it would never be outlawed because everyone is too stupid and selfish, but I think it should at least be harder to get divorced so the ideal situation is easier to attain...but if a husband or wife dies, it is nobody's fault the ideal was not upheld.

    >"Bush is real."
    yeah, a real asshole.

    Haha, not funny!

    >This aura is big enough to cover the US and parts of Canada (at least the part Jorge lives in).

    Trust me, Bush isn't hated anywhere more than Canada. This aura that only enlightened, right-minded, morally superious, righteous, prrgressive liberals© such are yourself can escape ends in the Northern US, buddy.

    >Not all americans are suceptible to this power, of course.
    This theory explains why everyone else in the world thinks your country is going bonkers.

    It's always amazed me how ignorant most Americans are to how hated they were BEFORE Bush came inot power. Trust me, 9/11 didn't make anyone feel sorry for Americans. Bush didn't contribute to this, trust me. You should hear some of the venom I've heard directed toward ALL Americans by Canadian teenagers, who seem to say what most Canadian adults think.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A big part of the reason they want to get married is for tax purposes, anyway. I don't see why civil unions, a perfectly good NON-RELIGIOUS alternative, isn't good enough.

    Because separate but equal is not equal. A civil union is not afforded the same emotional status as a marriage. Unless every marriage performed outside of a church is deemed a civil union...

    No one is saying that the government would force churches to accept or perform gay marriages. When my mother, a Catholic, married my father, a divorced man, she was barred from receiving Communion. The government did not step in and force the church to accept the marriage. Marriage is NOT a religious institution in this country...it is a civil one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. From what I understand from my study of the history of marriage is that sex between a man and a woman was not allowed unless they made a public declaration to stay together to raise the children that would be a product of this union. Most of this discussion has been about the rights a privileges of adults - not about the care of the children. We need to get things back into prospective. Adults tend to use the law to get what is best for them,ie couples living together but both declaring single parent status to take advantage of the tax laws etc. and not what is best for the children. I wonder what percentage of gay couples are raising children?

    ReplyDelete
  16. >Because separate but equal is not equal.

    I guess we shouldn't have seperate washrooms then... Notice whenever somebody says that, they never say WHY seperate but equal isn't equal?

    >No one is saying that the government would force churches to accept or perform gay marriages. When my mother, a Catholic, married my father, a divorced man, she was barred from receiving Communion. The government did not step in and force the church to accept the marriage. Marriage is NOT a religious institution in this country...it is a civil one.

    Actually, it's both. You can get married in a chuch but if you don't sign that marriage licence you're not legally married. All a civil union is is the legal aspect of it. When you call it marriage you're getting into a sacred union that shouldn't be fucked with.

    > civil union is not afforded the same emotional status as a marriage.

    Why do gay people deserve that emotional status when they're going against nature and the illeniums long tradition of men being with women? Homosexuality is not natural and shouldn't be given the same status as a real marriage. If homosexuality wasn't agasint nature gays could procreate.

    >Jorge, I think you should stop posting all together.
    You're just some dumbass kid who doesn't know what the fuck he's
    talking about.

    Settle down, Matt Lumley.

    Marriage has been between men and women since the dawn of time, why change it now? Are we somehow smarter than we were 1000 years ago when it comes to this? Or have we just stopped having morals? What is the difference here?

    We started by becoming tolerant of the right things but now we've become tolerant of all the wrong things. Everything is ok now.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Okay, I removed the last two anonymous posts.

    I definitely do NOT agree with like 99.99999999% of what Jorge is saying either, but let's try to be alittle classier than just those cheap swipes okay.

    If you don't like what someone is saying, back your arguement up with examples to contradict it. If you can't do that, then shut up and stay out of all this until you're able to do so.

    There, that's out of the way.

    We kind of veered off the topic a bit into gay marriage. I didn't mention it once in the blogpost because to me it's a non-issue. Yes, I know one of the assinine things Twig-Boy and his minions did was make it an issue (especially around election time) but for me there's no discussion. It's like making an issue out of "Circus midgets want to run hot dog stands". Let 'em. If it barely affect me, what the hell do I care?

    Remember, this post was about comparing Coo Coo Bananas to Tricky Dick. Let's get back to that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's always amazed me how ignorant most Americans are to how hated they were BEFORE Bush came inot power

    You're not saying it explicitly, but just so you know: I'm not american, in fact I've been to the US only once, 12 years ago. Yes, a lot of people hated America before, but it wasn't even close to how it is now. Go to some other country and look around. I can see it, and I live in a country in which any foreigner (yes, even americans) will have their boots licked in the minute they step out of the plane.

    Trust me, 9/11 didn't make anyone feel sorry for Americans. Bush didn't contribute to this, trust me.

    Wrong again. People DID feel sorry for americans. My brother got in trouble in school for refusing to display his solidarity by parading waving the american flag. He has nothing against americans, he just thought it was stupid. And then came the war on Iraq. When the whole WMD thing started, everyone instantly knew that Bush was looking for an excuse to start this war (the same way he is looking for a reason to attack Iran now). Don't underrate his contribution to the general negative attitude towards the US.

    That's pretty much it. I won't post here anymore because I find argument useless, unless both parts can let their egos aside agree to be objective. Which is unlikely considering your now revealed religiosity (which you're entitled to, I hope not to sound patronizing). Anyway, don't get stressed because of all this, while I think you're insane you're a funny guy, most of the times.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree, Gabriel.
    Most Americans that I know ( some of whom are Replubicans by the way) don't agree with a lot of Bushs awful, inhumane political policies.
    And I don't believe the Bush administration tries to hide their hidden political agendas.
    Either that, or they are really bad at hiding their agendas. And I mean REALLY bad.
    It's really the Mass media ( CNN included ) that paint this white washed portrayal of the President as an unbungling, Intelligent and fully competent chief of staff.
    The writing is on the wall. This administration doesn't give a lot of us REAL Americans credit and assumes we are all Dumb enough to believe whatever the mass media tells us.
    I'm not saying what I'm saying is absolute LAW and FACT, It's Opinion.
    All I'm saying is we should all be open minded enough to look at every angle of something instead of believing what some middle aged Guy in a suit and Tie on the NIghtly news tells us to Believe.

    ReplyDelete
  20. >Wrong again. People DID feel sorry for americans. My brother got in trouble in school for refusing to display his solidarity by parading waving the american flag. He has nothing against americans, he just thought it was stupid.

    In my school everoyne was mkaing jokes about 9/11 THE DAY IT HAPPENED. I've heard some people say "GOOD!" to news that Americans were killed in some bombing overseas.

    >When the whole WMD thing started, everyone instantly knew that Bush was looking for an excuse to start this war (the same way he is looking for a reason to attack Iran now).

    Bush was planning to invade Iraw before 9/11. Did you read Bob Woodward's bok "Plan Of Attack"?

    >It's really the Mass media ( CNN included ) that paint this white washed portrayal of the President as an unbungling, Intelligent and fully competent chief of staff.

    Are you nuts? Bush is the most unpoular President in YEARS and is constantly portrayed as retarded on all news channles except the heavily biased Fox News. 95% of Bush jokes are about his perceived lack of intelligence, not his policies.

    ReplyDelete
  21. P.C. Unfunny12/8/06 8:33 PM

    "Becasue he's a great president"

    Sending thousands of troops to die to fight a enemy that is not cleary defined dose not make a great president.Al-qaeda was in Afghanistan and so was bin Laden,the US did invade but it really was nothing compared to this huge waste of time in Iraq,which had nothing to do with 9/11 and no WMDs were ever found.

    ReplyDelete
  22. P.C. Unfunny12/8/06 8:35 PM

    "Bush was planning to invade Iraw before 9/11."

    Yep and he couldn't find a excuse until 9/11 happened.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Interesting debate here...

    I agree, Mr Bush should have been empeached by now, but, I guess thats something only the Americans have control of. From what ive read, the majority of Americans are against him. I hope its just a matter of time.

    anyone read Noam Chomsky?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I unfortunately have not heard anything Mr. Chomsky has said. I would love to know his thoughts on Mr. Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Louisa stated:

    - "Secondly, all REPUTABLE studies have shown that there is no difference between children raised by one sex and children raised by both."

    no.
    all reputable studies have shown conclusively that on a psychological level, a sociological level, and a biological levelthat there is a defintie difference in the raising of children by a same sex couple. in the development of a childs sexuality for one - but for a child's overrall development as a whole. in our developmental stages we figure out our identity from the guidance of our parents.

    read the first chapter of "the dragons of eden" by Carl Sagan for the most succinct, dead on elaboration of our bargain with nature. we have developed as a speices and as a human culture BECAUSE of a man and a woman as parents to our children. we did not devlop in spite of it.


    - "It is not as if kids raised by lesbians never see a man in their lives, or don't have other male relatives around."

    a man around is not equatable to a parent. a parent is an individual available at all times for guidance and as a role model. you are equating exposure to rearing. there is a huge difference.


    - "Third...if your argument is that all children should have a mother and a father, why not just take kids away from single parents? It makes just as much legal sense."


    no. you don't make any sense. you are justifying a detrimental scenario for children by pointing to another one. in fact, the vast majority of single parents are actually looking for a partner to help rear their children. i defy anyone to find me a single parent that thinks parenting is an easier job done solo. the single parent situation is not one sought out as an ideal choice.
    furthermore, its cracked logic to justify things in this way. so there are single parents, does that mean we should lower the time tested traditional standards for raising our children because of this recent development? if crime rates are up, should we reduce sentences? if the national average of body weight is up should we change nutritional standards?
    when i see a child with a single parent, i have a bit of sympathy fo that child.
    when i see a child with gay parents, i can only shake my head in frustration.

    as a man i would never state that i can be as effective a parent in nurturing, communication, and intuition as a woman. women are infinitely more adept at those skills around children. likewaise, men bring a different variety of attributes to teaching and leading children in later stages of development. there IS a differnce between the sexes. in the same way that women's bones are not as dense as mens and mens muscles are larger, each sex is more skilled in certain areas. no area is more disitincitve in this regard than men and women's diffent profficencies in raising children.

    let me ask you this:

    if you could, would you go back and trade your mom for another dad?
    would you trade in your dad for another mom?
    would you have gotten the same fulfillment out of your upbringing?

    no.
    you would not have the differnce in perspectives . you would not have the variety of influences on your youth. in effest you would have less. in every single way our identities have been shaped by growing up and living in a world of men and women. you can't simply discount thousands and thousands of years of successful evolution because you want to put your own life first.
    for the left to consistently hang their hat on evolution, it is amazing that they readily discount ALL of it when it comes to their own self serving needs.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jorge is right. Bush is "a stupid dangerous asshole."

    ReplyDelete