Daily Kos

Bush explains his social security plan

by kos

Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:55:54 PM PDT

Jesus, I thought Atrios was joking when he posted this:
THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it.

Bush has no clue what he's talking about.
  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 416 comments

  •  the man gives incoherence (3.96 / 25)

    a bad name...

    He no puppy the happy go-monkey banana tree.

    strong infrastructure and fair play

    by pyrrho on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:52:34 PM PDT

    •  Purple Monkey Dishwasher (4.00 / 7)

      I could feel something oozing out of my ears as I read that.

      I think I MAY NEED A BATHroom break?

      by marchmoon on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:53:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We Haven't Mis-Underestimated Him Enough... (4.00 / 5)

        Fuzzy only works for pets.

        by NotFuzzy on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:32:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And if you read (none / 0)

          the entire press release you'll wonder why it hasn't already been scrubbed from the Inet. It is utterly incoherent. Not only that, but it looks like they screened the questioners again. They all ask questions, get mumbled answers, and then agree to whole heartedly back the SS reform. This is disgusting.

          by orkidthief on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:11:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i never thought dan quayle (none / 1)

            was not going to go down as the biggest idiot ever in the white house.

            wow!  thank god that guy was only VP.

            i have given up trying to understand the idiot.  please don't pop some synapses trying people!

            Texas Kaos Take Back Texas

            Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

            by krazypuppy on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:33:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Next to Bush, Quayle (none / 1)

              is a freakin semi genius...LOL

              Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

              by wishingwell on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:36:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Unwired (4.00 / 5)

                Was Bush missing that mystery device that he wore during the debates?  Sounds like Bush unplugged.

                Hillary '08.

                by Athena on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:48:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Quayle was Stupid; Bush has Cognitive Problems (none / 0)

                You can't have that many discontinuities in your speech and not have something wrong with your brain.

                I think a psycholinguist should look at Bush's speech to see if there is evidence of some damage to his brain from his years of drinking and snorting coke.

                by ortcutt on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:10:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why look? (none / 0)

                  Doesn't this speak for itself?

                  An unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates

                  by crone on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:53:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  DQ made no more factual or logical errors than GWB (none / 0)

                  And stupidity is certainly a consequence of "cognitive problems".

                  "I think a psycholinguist should look at Bush's speech to see if there is evidence of some damage to his brain from his years of drinking and snorting coke."

                  Psycholinguists study the psychological basis of human language.  Anyone who claims to be able to make the sort of determination you refer to is a quack.

                  by jqb on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:15:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My Point Exactly (none / 0)

                    "Psycholinguists study the psychological basis of human language."

                    So, they might be able to study Bush's linguistic pathology and hypothesize about what has happened to his brain which causes his grotesque linguistic deficiencies.

                    by ortcutt on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:18:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  hypotheses are just opinions (none / 0)

                      A hypothesis offered by a psycholinguist is no more valid than a hypothesis offered by you or me.  To be valid, it requires a supporting empirical framework.  That's the difference between science and quackery.

                      by jqb on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:29:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Hypotheses are not Opinions (none / 0)

                        That's the sort of rhetoric that lets Creationists claim that Natural Selection is just an opinion.  There is a difference between an hypothesis reached on the basis of evidence and a "mere opinion".  I was wondering whether a psycholinguist--who has studied the empirical evidence about how the brain influences how we speak--would have a hypothesis on what is wrong with Bush.

                        by ortcutt on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:37:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Natural Selection is not a hypothesis. (none / 0)

                          Natural Selection is an established principle, derived from and overwhelmingly supported by observation.  In fact, despite Darwin having developed his principle from extensive observation, the fact of Natural Selection is tautologous -- once stumbled upon, it can be seen to necessarily occur.  OTOH, the mechanisms of Natural Selection, which were mostly unknown to Darwin, have been discovered by scientists and are part of the theory of evolution -- which is neither hypothesis nor opinion, but rather a coherent explanatory framework with extensive empirical support.

                          > That's the sort of rhetoric that lets Creationists claim that Natural Selection is just an opinion.

                          That's silly and offensive bullshit.  Creationists claim things all the time regardless of what anyone "lets" them do, but any Creationist who claims that Natural Selection is an opinion or hypothesis is full of crap.  Go study some Philosophy of Science, to understand what these terms mean.

                          And your whole approach here is dishonest; you know as well as I do that what Creationists claim is that "evolution is just a theory".  The problem with that claim is that they mistakenly equate the scientific concept of "theory" with the vernacular use, which is equivalent to "hypothesis".  It is precisely because hypotheses are not scientifically established claims that Creationists get leverage out of this semantic confusion.

                          > There is a difference between an hypothesis reached on the basis of evidence and a "mere opinion".

                          As noted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
                          "a hypothesis is a provisional idea whose merit is to be evaluated"

                          Both hypotheses and opinions are usually reached on the basis of evidence -- like my opinion that you don't know much about scientific method, derived from the evidence of what you have written.  It is your rhetoric, that confuses hypotheses with principles, laws, and theories, that provides the Creationists fodder.  Hypotheses are guesses -- they are actually even weaker than opinions, because good scientists don't hold a belief as to whether a hypothesis is true or false.  The only rule is that a hypothesis should be consistent with the known facts -- a rule that applies, or should apply, to opinions as well.  Basically, an opinion is a hypothesis that someone believes.  So some psycholinguist might be of the opinion that Bush has brain damage due to fetal alcohol syndrome, based on hsr knowledge of language, psychology, brain function, Bush's behavior, and that Barbara Bush is a lush.  But it's still an opinion, not a scientific conclusion.

                          > I was wondering whether a psycholinguist--who has studied the empirical evidence about how the brain influences how we speak--would have a hypothesis on what is wrong with Bush.

                          And my point was and is that any such hypothesis has no scientific validity, it does not serve as an authoritative claim, it cannot serve as a conclusion -- it's "a provisional idea whose merit is to be evaluated".  Any psycholinguist who testified that s/he had a hypothesis that Bush's speech was caused by drug or alcohol use would be laughed out of court.  An hypothesis is just a supposition as to what might be the case -- it's a starting point for an investigation.  What the psycholinguist would need is convincing empirical support for the hypothesis, and any psycholinguist who claims to have that is a quack.

                          I suggest that you read
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

                          You'll get a lot more out of that than from wasting your time trying to shoot me down or to foolishly and offensively make me out as an enabler of Creationists.  I've spent plenty of time at talk.origins and elsewhere debating Creationists, and I'm quite familiar with their arguments and the flaws in them.

                          by jqb on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 02:02:35 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Hypotheses (none / 1)

                            Hypotheses are not opinions.  An hypothesis is something that can be tested.  However, it is not something that is simply made up.  Hypotheses about the causes of some phenomenon are inferred on the basis of principles arrived at from empirical evidence.  I don't understand why you think that any psycholinguist who arrives at a hypothesis about Bush is a quack.  Are you saying that it is impossible to make an scientifically valid inference about Bush's brain on the basis of the empirical evidence of his speech?  Certainly any such hypothesis would need further testing--testing which will likely never happen--in order to become established, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of making an hypothesis on the basis of the evidence.

                            by ortcutt on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:06:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  It's called the confusion technique... (none / 1)

                      ...in conversational hypnosis.  It was pioneered by Milton H. Erickson, a psychiatrist and researcher who developed many hypnotic techniques after studying the way mental patients distorted language.

                      This example of Bushspeak  on SS reminds me of the day during the O.J. trial when Johnny Cochran described what DNA evidence was.  He prefaced a very confusing, bewildering lecture by saying to the jury, "Now I'm gonna talk about DNA so you can all go to sleep."

                      The Bush goal is for people to say, "Ahh, I don't get the details but they say it's going to make me more money so I am for it."

                      The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                      by Plan9 on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:43:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  He knows exactly what he is doing... (none / 0)

            what he means is that the people under 55 will not be getting what was promised....SO to make up for it you have to invest in plans that HE approves of so you can make up the difference...you know the companies like energy(enron)/millitary/mercenary etc.

            Will the elite be happy living behind gated communities in the potential meltdown? Peace now. -7.00, -2.92

            by mattes on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:55:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Speaking of simians, how can we doubt evolution? (4.00 / 2)

        Reminds me of Koko the Talking Gorilla and her magic light box. You know, she presses buttons to convey thoughts and desires, but of course, in all fairness, her grasp of syntax is far more sophisticated.

        And then, of course, there's Natasha, the macaque at the Tel Aviv park, who amazed all onlookers merely by walking upright. I believe that Secy of State Condi "Wild" Rice is planning to meet with her this week.

        "Men would rather believe than know." -- Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology

        by rob511 on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:38:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And The Strike Goes On (none / 1)

        Especially because of the purple monkey dishwasher comment

        by thebrucie on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:54:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  LMAO at yer comment about the oooooze (none / 0)

        by ksecus on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:20:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bush not intelligent? What else is new? (4.00 / 2)

      Bush has showed us that he isn't very smart, especially with complex subjects....that's why we've been able to publish those "Bushisms" books.

      Intelligence is not one of his strong points.

      Visit the incredibly useful Pacific Northwest Portal, the regional media & information gateway for progressives

      by archerhouse on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:57:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He Retains Enough Information (4.00 / 5)

      So that he thinks he knows what he's talking about.

      Then he gets mid sentence and realizes that he dosen't have enough information to complete his thought.

      So he starts another sentence.

      I am so freakin' glad to see he's back to his old form. I was actually gettin scared that he was getting his shit together.

      by sloanman on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:59:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Like Furniture to the Sea (4.00 / 3)

      Awhile back the was a thread with some fun discussion on Bushspeak...and there is a comment that still applies:

      scrump-dilly-icious

      I usually find myself in direct opposition to our dear leader.
      But I am firmly like furniture to the sea with him on this one.

      b6

      The following is a reply, OT, but funny.


      Pome

      Furniture to the Sea

      O Furniture
      Woven nature

      Nailed into square shapes

      Why move thee
      To the wet sea

      Why hate
      The living room fate

      And seek in oceans
      Far nobler notions

      Bald Peanut

      I did one too. But in the interest of saving space and of modesty, only linking.

      Goverment isn't ruling, its managing diversity. - ppGaz, balloon-juice.com

      by Clever on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:16:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As I read somewhere (4.00 / 7)

      "He makes Richard Nixon seem honest, Ronald Reagan seem smart, and his father seem  coherent." Seems about right. :).  

      by jj32 on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:26:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Freep this poll (none / 0)

      Will Bush be a more or less effective leader in his second term. Freep here Although anyone who would think he is more effective, after that garbled explanation of SS, is a serious kool-aid drinker.

      by treehugger on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:46:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  been wondering for a long time (none / 0)

        what does freep mean?

        "See me age 19 with some dumb haircut from 1960 moving to New York City " - the Walkmen

        by Biggreen80 on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:05:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  freep (none / 1)

          from the Kossary in the dkosopedia.

          Freep
              1. Verb: To flood a forum, electronic or real, with a large number of aggressive right wingers.
              2. To tell right wingers to go to an online survey and push it in their favored direction (See DU).
              3. Noun: Collective noun for kool-aid drinking (see below) right wingers as a whole. Also Freeple. (Stirling Newberry)

          The origin being that the Free Republic web site (the users of which are lovingly called "freepers" by the civilized world) developed a tradition of flooding online polls to whatever degree they could.

          They don't seem to like when dkos does it though.

          strong infrastructure and fair play

          by pyrrho on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:20:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  To Freep (none / 0)

          To Freep: To travel en-masse to an on-line poll and vote in some way favorable to your "side" of the political divide.
          Originates from Bloggers at FreeRepublic, who were the first group to get really effective at this tactic.

          Usage:  "Go freep this pole."  "Freeping is a wast of time."  "We are getting better and freeping than the freepers."

          "I don't want to name names, but they know themselves." Koffi Annan

          by Sue in NH on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:57:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Argh... (none / 0)

        What a poorly-written poll...

        We're given three choices:

        • By choosing "more effective," we confirm our membership to the GOP; naturally, that one's out the window (for reasons not worth explaining).
        • By choosing "less effective," we are conceding that he was, at least to a limited extent, "effective" during his first term.  The problem with this choice is that "effective" has a positive connotation, and thus, by choosing this choice, we are also claiming that he has also, to a limited extent, benefitted this country in some way.
        • By choosing "the same," we run the risk of having our message muddled by anybody viewing the results of the poll.  People who hate him may pick this option because they envision four more years of his incessant stupidity, and people who love him and would like to annoint him as the Messiah may also pick this option.

        So, seriously, what the hell am I supposed to pick?  The idea of the poll is there, but the wording of the question and/or the choices provided as answers definitely need an overhaul.

        by cwgannon on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:33:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I freeped it... (none / 0)

        but I hate CNN polls... the questions should be

        Do you think *sh will be more effective...
        Do You think *sh will be less effective...
        Do you think *sh will show up for work?

        An unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates

        by crone on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:59:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bush has no (none / 0)

      clue what he's talking about.

      Yep.

      Kind of the same story that existed with weaspons of mass destruction.

      Notice also, the constantly shifting rationales after the Administration has been questioned on this "plan."

      Kind of makes you wish the Dems had stood up to him back on Iraq.  Perhaps then, this motherfucker wouldn't even have the crediblity to political capital to be having the SS discussion today.

      by Progressive on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:59:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought I was smart (none / 1)

      But I have NO idea what this means...

      It's not easy being a Floridian

      by lawstudent922 on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:23:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Always before with Bush I used the 180 degree rule (none / 0)

      For the past four plus years, I have always used the 180 degree rule when listening to Bush.  99% of the time it has worked.  If I wanted to know the truth I just looked 180 degrees opposite of what Dumbya was saying.  But this excerpt on his Social Security Plan has both him and me Dumbyafounded.  Hard to go 180 degrees from a mobius strip or a circular arguement.  If Bush isn't careful he's going to end up sitting on his own head again.

      by jhsupply2buy on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:24:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Baba Booey! Baba Booey! (3.80 / 5)

    A Howard Stern skit is more comprehensible than the Chimp discussing his ideas for the phase-out of the most popular government program in American history...

    This is what you wanted America, right?

    Baba Booey!

    Wars not make one great. - Yoda

    by Volvo Liberal on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:53:11 PM PDT

  •  Oh God, he's off his Meds !! (4.00 / 2)

    McCain: He's Constipated and Ready to GO

    by Al Rodgers on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:53:18 PM PDT

  •  Must have forgotten his transmitter... (3.75 / 4)

    ...telling him what to say.

    by wdrath on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:53:54 PM PDT

  •  For crying out loud (4.00 / 2)

    Is anyone going to hold him accountable?  Seriously, this is our leader and he cannot even complete a coherent sentence.  
    At least he's not gaining any ground with this 'plan' of his.  Not that he knows a damn thing about 'his plan'... but really people... THIS is the man we elected?
    What the hell happened to my country?!

    "Revolutionary change does not come as one cataclysmic moment...but as an endless succession of surprises, moving zigzag toward a more decent society."

    by saint on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:54:04 PM PDT

    •  Well, how can you argue (4.00 / 7)

      with his statement? Really!

      I would love to know what the follow up question was after Bush gave that answer. Was it something other than "WTF did you say?"

      "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

      by aggressiveprogressive on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:58:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We (4.00 / 2)

      Who you callin' "we?"

      I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with. World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -- Albert Einstein

      by elveta on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:10:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Conservatives rip into the Bush budgets (none / 1)

      From Reuters:

      Under Bush's plan, discretionary domestic spending outside of defense and homeland security would fall by 0.7 percent in the coming budget year and then hold steady through 2009, which means it would keep shrinking in inflation-adjusted terms.

      William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, questioned whether Bush, who has never vetoed a spending bill, would be able to hold that line.

      "That's only 17 percent of the total budget and it's the part of the budget that has more politics per dollar in it," he said. "It takes a very large expenditure of political capital to keep that budget tight."

      As Stan Collender, Washington manager for communications firm Financial Dynamics, put it: "You've got a Republican Congress that is more worried about its own re-election than the president's legacy."

      Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Bush might prefer to spend his political capital battling to revamp Social Security and the tax code. "I think there are priorities on his list that are higher than deficit reduction," she said.

      Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said even if Bush managed to win the myriad budget cuts his plan envisions, he would still need to rein in mandatory spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare to meet his deficit goal.

      AND THEN...

      Analysts also said the White House had masked the cost of a plan to make permanent Bush's tax cuts, which are due to expire by the end of the decade, by looking at deficits only over a five-year window.

      The administration said the tax proposal would cut revenues by just $53 billion over the coming five years, but pegged the 10-year cost at $1.1 trillion. Congressional forecasters have put the 10-year total at $1.7 trillion.

      In addition, the White House did not include the revenue that would vanish if workers were allowed to divert part of their Social Security payroll taxes to private accounts.

      Administration officials have said the plan would cost $754 billion over 10 years but acknowledged the total cost would climb into the trillions before savings from a slower pace of benefit growth began to recoup that money.

      "Outside of the budget window, the fiscal situation deteriorates an an incredibly rapid pace," MacGuineas said.

      "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

      by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:50:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If 9-11 happened (none / 1)

      on his watch, after repeated warnings, and no one held him accountable, what makes you think anyone is going to hold him accountable on this?

      We have a bought and paid for media in this country--hacks, shills, stenographers, liars and propagandists.

      by Progressive on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:05:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  HAHAHA (none / 0)

    Bush forgot the ADD medicine this morning

    by weathercoins on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:54:08 PM PDT

    •  Don't insult the great leader (none / 0)

      Elitist!!

      by starvin on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:55:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just as a reminder... (none / 0)

        Bush went to top-flight prep schools and Yale.  He also has a MBA.

        Bush is as "elite" as they come.  How he came out of it such a blathering idiot is a well-known story, but Bush has never, ever been anything remotely close the the "common man."

        It gets twisty.  Most common men are a great deal more intelligent than the chimp.

        God what a disgrace.

        by paradox on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:17:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm Sure He Did This on Purpose (none / 0)

          so as to set up his comments for tomorrow about what "hard work" fixing Social Security is.....

          Fuzzy only works for pets.

          by NotFuzzy on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:35:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm convinced (none / 0)

          the Texas "twang" is a put on...

          ...and he probably even knows the right way to pronounce "Nuclear."

          It's the fear based thing again - less educated people fear an erudite bootstrapper like Edwards more than this ultra-elite dude with the "folksy" facade.

          "There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS." - Gandhi

          by hopesprings on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:59:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bush is as phoney (none / 0)

            they come, The only way out of this fiscal mess is to get rid of the tax cuts he gave to the gazzilonares.

            Anything less then that is not realistic and is going cause pain and agony the likes this country has not seen for sometime for the middle class and the working poor.

            by jackieca on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:36:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  MBA = Monkey Boy Antics? (none / 0)

          Granted, that grad school thing was a while back, but, jumpin' Jehosophat!, this "explanation" is supposed to be enlightening the working masses? I never understood it to begin with (wonder why?) and am now convinced Monkey Boy has no idea either. Almost makes one pine for the paid propagandists. They would've at least made the incomprehensible malarkey here appear grammatical!

          The personal is the political.

          by sawcielackey on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:10:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah! (none / 0)

        Besides he's still "working on it."   It's a work in progress.  

         Don't you kinda miss the days when Reagan would just doze off in mid-sentence and everyone would just sort of tip-toe away?

        by V Botkin on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:16:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Time for that recovering alcoholic (none / 1)

       to back up from the 3rd step (God blah blah) to the first step (admit he's powerless).  Someone tell him to call his sponsor.

      Bush - the New Hoover. He really sucks.

      by slick riddles on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:09:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mental-Midget-in-Chief (none / 0)

    And he can't properly conjugate a verb . . . .

    "I must create a system or be enslaved by another man's." - William Blake

    by Tod Westlake on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:55:24 PM PDT

  •  He sounds exactly like a high school kid... (3.83 / 6)

    who had to give a presentation in front of class but never bothered to study the topic.

    by fly on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:55:56 PM PDT

    •  And had been out drinking all night (4.00 / 2)

      :)

      Wars not make one great. - Yoda

      by Volvo Liberal on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:57:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He IS a high school kid (none / 1)

      At least emotionally.

      I've often looked at Junior and thought that I'm looking at an adolescent in a middle-aged man's body.

      I mean, hell--He's failed at everything he's ever tried on his own.  (He's even failed at things that he hasn't tried on his own--i.e., the Presidency).  He's never had to really be a MAN.  Instead he's always had daddy, or daddy's friends, or daddy's business connections there to enable him every step of the way.

      This is disgusting.  This is supposed to be the meritocracy in the United States.  Instead, we have a neo-aristocracy of unqualified elites running this country, who get where they are by virtue of who's loins they sprang from.

      by Progressive on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:10:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So True (none / 0)

        I've often wondered why the Democrats have been so reluctant to point out these obvious flaws. Here is a man who was able to slide through Yale during a time of great upheaval (1964-1968) and seemingly be totally unaffected by it. By his own admission he was basically a drunk until he was 40. I have always felt that my son had it right; where George H.W. was born on third base and thought he hit a triple, W. was born on third and thought he hit a grand slam home run.

        by jstanley on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:34:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •   "who get where they are by virtue of ... (none / 0)

         
        ...who's loins they sprang from."
         

        or, in more rare scenarios ... it could be

             

        ... who's butt cheeks.  ô¿~

        ~A govt lobbied, campaigned and selected by corporation... is good for corporation. Bad for people.~ -8.88 -8.36

        by Orj ozeppi on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:20:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hell (none / 0)

      I put better sentences together than that in high school without studying all the time... in French class (which I almost flunked).

      by Buckeye on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:12:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another fine example (3.83 / 6)

    of the architect of the Texas Education Miracle.

    Learnin' is hard work. I knows cause I seen it on the TV screen.

    "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

    by aggressiveprogressive on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:56:02 PM PDT

  •  Speaking in Tongues, He's gone Pentecostal (3.93 / 16)

    McCain: He's Constipated and Ready to GO

    by Al Rodgers on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:56:04 PM PDT

    •  LOL (none / 1)

      That must be it! I had to read it slowly out loud twice and I am still not sure what he means... the words aren't supposed to go together that way, are they?

      Can we get a Pentecostal translator?