It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Summing it up

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 05:28 PM
Interesting article I found posted on a survivalist newsgroup.. posted by an anonymous user....
It is indeed well written
Several "dirty" words were removed by myself from this version to meet the standards of the censors on ATS.

Saturday, November 06, 2004
Bush Wins Thanks to Millions of Utter Morons

For obvious reasons, this will be my last post. And
while I generally believe that incivility does nothing
to help public discourse, I'm going to let my hair
down this time. Millions of Bush supporters need to
hear this.

You absolute and total f****** idiots. What were you

The two Bush supporters who read this blog are going
to be upset that I've resorted to using such language.
Too bad. It's time to stop pussy-footing around and
call out the truth for what it is.

To be fair, I should point out that I don't believe
that all Bush supporters are idiots. For example,
there are the social conservatives, the people who
oppose Roe v. Wade and rights for gays and so forth. I
don't think those people are idiots for supporting
Bush. I think they're bigoted against gays, and I
think many of them are hypocrites for wanting our
country to be goverened by the Bible while at the same
time declaring war on Islam, but I don't think they're
idiots. As much as I disagree with their views, Bush
and the modern Republican party are definitely the
people the social conservatives should be voting for.

Then there are other people who are simply lifelong,
dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, who would vote for a
canned ham as long as an (R) appeared next to it on
the ballot. Those people are clearly idiots, because
they vote without thinking. But they are no more
idiots than Democrats who blindly vote their party
affiliation, and it's my sense that those two groups
roughly cancel each other out.

But Bush didn't get 59 million votes simply from the
social conservatives and the 'canned ham' Republicans.
Those two consituencies couldn't possibly account for
more than 35 - 40 million of his votes, tops. And if
40 million votes was all Bush got, this would have
been a landslide for Kerry.

Where did the rest of Bush's votes come from? Well,
one possibility is they came as the result of voting
machine malfunctions or outright fraud, but I don't
honestly believe that's the case. At least, I can't
prove it yet.

The only other possibility? Bush received at least 20
million votes from idiots, people who might have been
wiling to vote the other way, but decided for one
reason or another that Bush was the better candidate.

But how could ANYONE with an ounce of sense think Bush
was the better candidate? What was the one
accomplishment of the Bush administration that
persuaded them to give Bush four more years? Was it
the fact that the worst terrorist attack ever to take
place on American soil happened on Bush's watch? The
fact that Bush spent the first seven minutes after
receiving word of the attacks staring blankly at a
room full of elementary school children? The fact that
the Bush administration willfully withheld an EPA
evaluation on how dangerous the air was in downtown NY
after the attacks, so that thousands of people,
including unborn children, will have health problems
for the rest of their lives?

Was it the fact that Bush resisted the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security, and the creation of
the 9/11 commission? Or maybe it was the fact that
Bush willfully withheld information from the 9/11
commission for months, and refused to testify before
the commission in person, and then finally agreed to
testify but only if Dick Cheney could come along and
hold his hand?

Maybe it was the fact that Bush and friends
relentlessly politicized the attacks, using them to
cast their Democratic opponents as unpatriotic, using
Osama bin Laden's picture in campaign ads in the 2002
midterm elections to smear an incumbent Democrat who
had served heroically in Vietnam? Or the fact that
they used the attacks to strongarm Democrats into
voting for a resolution authorizing the use of force
against Iraq less than a month before those midterm

Or maybe the war against Iraq was enough all by
itself? Was it the way that Cheney and Wolfowitz set
up their own intelligence agency, the Office of
Special Plans, to cherry pick intelligence reports
about Iraq's WMD capability, so that exculpatory data
never made it to Bush's desk, but inflammatory and
often unreliable data did? Was it the way Colin Powell
went before the UN and boldly lied about Iraq's
weapons stockpiles? Or the comments Bush, Rumsfeld,
Rice and especially Cheney made giving detailed
descriptions of Iraq's weapons capabilities, stating
unambiguously types and quantities of weaponry when
they knew their statements were based on questionable
evidence at best and complete fabrications at worst?

Was it the fact that someone in the White House
committed a felony by blowing the cover of a CIA
operative working on WMD intelligence, and Bush didn't
really seem to give a damn?

Maybe it was the fact that David Kay and Charles
Duelfer both reported unambiguously that Iraq
basically never had WMD (since 1998) and never would
as long as the sanctions remained in place, yet until
very recently, Bush and Cheney both insisted that the
weapons really had been there? Maybe it was the way
Bush joked around about our inability to find those
weapons, even as our troops were getting killed by
Iraqi insurgents at the rate of more than one a day?

Maybe it was the fact that we sent far too few troops
to Iraq in the first place, and thus have had to
withstand much higher mortality rates than if we had
gone in with the recommended level of troops. Or the
fact that the Pentagon made up a detailed
post-invasion plan to secure the country, and Rumsfeld
threw it in the trash, confident that U.S. troops
would be greeted with open arms and flowers.

Maybe it was the way we invaded a country ruled by a
ruthless dictator with no significant ties to
terrorism and made it a terrorist haven. Maybe it was
the way we shredded almost all of the international
alliances we ever had in the process, thus making
success in Iraq much more difficult for this
president, and making diplomacy in general much more
difficult for any American president for years to

Maybe it was the way the Bushies raided the U.S.
treasury, slashing billions in tax revenues to lower
taxes for everyone a little bit, but for the
wealthiest a lot. After all, it is 'our money'. Maybe
it's the way that Bush showed his deep concern for
spending every tax dollar wisely by indiscriminately
doling out multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts to
Cheney's Halliburton cronies with no oversight.

Maybe it's the biggest national debt in U.S. history.
Maybe it's the fact that Bush is the first president
since Hoover to see a net decrease in the number of
jobs during his term of office. Maybe it's the fact
that Bush was so eager to pursue a meaningless and
expensive war of choice in Iraq that he let Osama bin
Laden get away. Maybe it's the fact that his
administration has done more to damage the environment
than any other administration in American history.

Maybe it's the fact that by invading Iraq, we allowed
377 tons of explosives to get into the hands of
terrorists. Maybe it's the fact that every
counterterrorism expert believes that the war in Iraq
made the U.S. less safe instead of more safe. Maybe
it's the fact that the administration lied about the
cost of the Medicare bill because even congressional
Republicans wouldn't have supported it if they had
known the true cost, or the fact that they made it
illegal for Medicare to use its buying power to
negotiate lower drug costs with manufacturers.

Maybe it's the fact that a bunch of liars spent a
month smearing Kerry's heroic record of service in
Vietnam, and so people decided they'd rather vote for
a deserter who to this day consistently lies about his
military record.

Now it's true that a lot of people aren't familiar
with all of the facts I've laid out above (and those
are just the ones I thought of off the top of my
head), and the so-called liberal media deserves a
large portion of the blame for this, for not doing
their job. On the other hand, the right of voting
carries with it a responsibility, and that
responsibility is to make an informed decision about
the candidates. To those whose idea of making an
informed decision is to get the facts from FOX News or
Rush Limbaugh, I say:

You're too stupid to be allowed to vote.

To those who deny that what I've written above is
fact, I say:

You're an astonishing imbecile.

To those who accept the above statements as fact and
chose to vote for Bush anyway, because they thought
Kerry would do a worse job fighting terror, or a worse
job managing the economy, I say:

You're a complete idiot. First, tell me how it's
possible to do a worse job than Bush has done. If you
can answer that question, then we'll get around to
discussing why Kerry would outperform Bush in every
aspect of the job.

If anyone is still reading this site, and if they're
Bush supporters, they'll call me a sore loser. Damn
right I'm sore. If you didn't have your nose up Sean
Hannity's a$$ we could have gotten this country
turned in the right direction with this election. But
no. 48% of the people in this country had better sense
than you, but because you prefer cheerleading for the
Cult of Bush to thinking, we all have to suffer right
along with you.

I'm talking to you, West Virginia, and you, Colorado,
and you, Nevada. If Kerry had taken those three
states, I wouldn't be writing this right now. But it
doesn't stop there. Florida went for the incompetent
buffoon, and apparently Ohio did, too.

This election shouldn't have been close. I expect
states like Texas to go for Bush, especially sense
he's the former governor. I lived in Texas for 4
years, and I've been fortunate never to see so many
utter f****** morons before or since. But I expect
better from most of the rest of the country. So yeah,
I'm sore, because I'm trying to raise my kids, and you
idiots are going to make this country a much more
unpleasant place for them to grow up, just because you
think it's more important to make 'flip-flopper' and
botox jokes than it is to get a responsible leader in
the White House.

And yes, I'm a loser, too. But unless you make over
$200,000 a year or work for the Republican party, the
oil industry or the defense industry, so are you. 98%
of the people in this country are going to be losers,
all because of you dumb, ignorant, frat-boy Bush

And I should point out, what you're reading isn't
merely the fevered ranting of a disappointed Kerry
supporter. I've got documentation to back me up. The
Program on International Policy Attitudes published a
study about a week before the election, which shows
not only that Bush supporters, in general, have a
weaker grasp of the facts than Kerry supporters, many
of them have fundamental misunderstandings about
Bush's positions on a wide number of issues. If that's
not the result of ignorance or stupidity, then what is
the explanation?

Congratulations. I hope you're as happy with your
'victory' three years from now as you are today.

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:38 PM
I can sum it up with less hot air than that.

Bush won because he was the better man for the job. Period, the end.

Those of you who get that bent out of shape about this fact, are just sore losers.

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 01:04 AM

Since were using some "language" here


Look i found a whole page of stuff to post that i couldnt have come up with myself, or at least offered a more personal view on. It fits well with the anti-Bush blinders i have on.

Can you say CRAP-FEST for this one?
from an UNNAMED source mean someone that was too chicken dung to put his name on that emotive and over hyped piece of liturature?

This posted on a survivalist site too?
Please supply us with a link so we can see for ourselves the calibre, bias, and radical slant you dug this turd up on.

Waste of electrons to bother to go line by line debunking that one.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by CazMedia]

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 11:17 PM
Yeah, this person exemplifies everything wrong with the liberal left. I know many liberals that I like. They have a different opinion than me, but they're reasonable and willing to compromise if they see that they're wrong. This person is just a moron. Yes, bigot, anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid. And you're calling the anti-gay people bigotted?

new topics

top topics

log in