Bush saw Gypsy!?- Page 2

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 2/8/04 at 6:07pm

Papa, I live an hour away from Austin. I spend time there. I have friends at UTAustin. The Bush tramps have a reputation..

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/8/04 at 6:49pm

y'know what broadwayguy2? are they running for anything? have they done anything other than having the misfortune to have been born in that family? "reputations?" unless you have personally witnessed drug use by one or both of them, then the accusation was off base. hearsay, they call it in court. and since i was speaking to auntie vish, and she's in 10023, i doubt she can offer eyewitness testimony.

it's no different that the jackals that went after chelsea when bubba was in office for no good reason other than the fact that they didn't like her parents. they were cowardly pigs to attack someone's family, and i said as much at the time, just as are those who attack gw's kids. so a coupla teen-age girls have had a few drinks. now there's an earth-shattering revelation. i think that people should be able to find enough things to find fault with in gw without bringing in the twins.

those who try to smear the reputations of people tangentially involved in elective politics with vague accusations should either make specific allegations and back them up with evidence other than "psst, i heard..." or they should remain quiet. those who do not are beneath contempt regardless of which end of the political spectrum they call home.

Updated On: 2/8/04 at 06:49 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/8/04 at 11:02pm

"Oooh, if I weren't a lady, just WHAT wouldn't I tell that varmint!"

Papa, I was also referring to the Bush tramps reputation, one I had been made well aware of some time ago, albeit not eyewitness testimony.

You, on the other hand, I'm sure know more than you're divulging. Hussie.

So glad, though, that you found a kicking guitar sound.

Air kisses,
Vish

[FrontRow]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 2:03pm

Of course it was just Mrs. Bush and her daughters.

I don't think George W. has EVER set foot inside a theater (except when forced to at Kennedy Center Honors, etc.).

Do you think he could name the author of 'Hamlet'? 'Streetcar'? 'Death of a Salesman'?

Seriously, I'd be surprised if he could answer one of those correctly.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 2:14pm

"[d]o you think he could name the author of '[h]amlet'? '[s]treetcar'? '[d]eath of a [s]alesman'?

[s]eriously, [i]'d be surprised if he could answer one of those correctly."

which, as much as it might pain us here on the broadwayworld board to contemplate, would put him squarely in the ranks of the majority of americans. shocking, ain't it? one reason why america loves gw, he's as culturally bankrupt as the people he governs!

[FrontRow]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 2:31pm

First of all, I'm not so sure the majority of Americans don't know who wrote those plays. Besides, he's not the majority of Americans. He's a Yale and Harvard graduate (among other "credentials" that should make him more knowledgeable than the average person). Yes, you may guffaw heartily at the idea of Bush going to any college, let alone Ivy League.

Second -- but really this should be first -- America loves Bush? Since when? Since more of them DIDN'T vote for him than did? Since more of them said they'd vote for Kerry over him? Since he has generated the fiercest opposition of any president ever, including Nixon, including Reagan?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 3:03pm

oh i don't know, in sheer volume and level of vitriol, i think that bubba inspired quite the opposition. there was that whole vast right wing conspiracy and that itsy bitsy impeachment, not to mention that the entire phenomenon of right wing talk radio which basically sprung up to denounce clinton. i think that was pretty fierce opposition. and a college edumacation don't near qualify nobody as intelleckshoe-al. besides, he was a c-student at best...average.

and yeah, the majority of americans don't know. next time you're out where there's a large group of people (not at the theatre or a museum) try asking a stranger any of those questions or all three.

as far as gw, don't despair, you'll have four more years to rail against him.

[etoile]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 3:13pm

Or more sadly, just ask the question here.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 3:13pm

SumofAllThings - I know plenty of church-going Christians that are actually warm and loving individuals with nothing against homosexuality. Some of them are gay as well. The building doesn't make them bad, you know.

Broadwaylilhead - The hate and judgement "in the name of the Lord" has been around for centuries. Religion is probably the most popular motive for murder in the history of mankind. Just because Christianity is the newest of the major religions, doesn't mean it should be left out. It didn't take long for Christians to send out thousands of children to their death in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or Hitler to remove anything he deemed to be against his warped view of Christianity and the superior race.

Namo - You will vote for anybody who will beat Bush? Does this mean that if they don't beat Bush, you won't vote for them? Will you only admit to voting for the winner?

Mr Roxy - Regarding your defense of high costs of medical treatment: Many doctors are still ripping off the public regardless of malpractice suits. I recently received a $400 bill from the surgeon who performed by appendectomy six months ago. My insurance paid for the surgery 100%, with the exception of this $400 for "hospital care". My insurance also covered my hospital stay (including the crappy no-ply $10 box of tissues, but that's another issue). This guy never saw me other than to perform the surgery. I never met him until the follow-up visit 2 weeks later ($20 co-pay for a 3 minute "you look fine to me" visit). He didn't know who I was or why I was there. When asked about this mysterious charge, I am told the doctor is busy. They never get back to me. They will be seeing me in person soon.

Which sexual harrasment lawsuits are frivolous? Unless you spefically know all the facts of each case, that is a pretty major assumption you are making.

"By all means, let's have Bin Laden served with court papers & led out in cuffs doing the perp walk" - Well, that would mean that he would have caught Bin Laden, which Bush certainly hasn't. No has he found the "weapons of mass destruction". But he did a great job at making us forget about 9/11 for a while with a war and orange alerts every bank holiday. Way to go!

broadwayguy2 - Who cares about the Bush daughters and their reputations? I don't think their actions define George as a President any more than my actions define my father as an electrical engineer. They're just raw meat for the media jackals. Tabloids love any opportunity to discredit any First Family member.

Anyone who thinks this election won't end up being the Lesser-of-two-evils agaoin must be new to the country. There's nothing the US loves more than to hate its President. Every potential candidate will be bashed. The candidates will be bashed. The next President will spend the next 4-8 years being bashed (probably on this very board). When it comes time, I will vote for the candidate that repulses me least and who does not support the revocation of the rights of any American. After all, Bush doesn't have to use the "A-word" to support it. Simply ask him if he would vote in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. I'm sure he'd smile and say, "Why yes! That's so new-kyew-ler! If they should pop out their heads, we should send 'em to Mars."

paplovesmambo - "one reason why america loves gw, he's as culturally bankrupt as the people he governs!" I have yet to meet one individual who feels that way. But cultural bankruptcy sure is a great reason to vote for a President. Where's my ballot?? As far as I'm concerned, it's over! I have waited all my life for a culturally bankrupt President (George Sr won't work, I met him at the Houston Symphony and Houston Grand Opera performances). I only hope we can find another one in 4 years! I LOVE THAT CULTURALLY BANKRUPT MAN!

Updated On: 2/9/04 at 03:13 PM

[FrontRow]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 4:05pm

"Sheer volume" pretty much describes the fierceness of opposition to Clinton. It was based entirely on sore-loserness. (Yes, the Republicans, who actually LOST the election, are sore losers.) And their objection to his having an intelligent, non-Stepford wife with a career.

Was opposition to Clinton based on policy, like the opposition to Bush? NO
Was it based on his perceived lack of qualification for the job, like the opposition to Bush? NO
Was it based on a trail of deceit, like Bush from his military "service" to Cheney's connections with Halliburton to that whole CIA guy & his wife thing (and many other examples)? NO
Was it based on his complete lack of consideration for anybody except his rich buddies, like the opposition to Bush? NO
Was it based on his running the country into the ground, i.e. humongous deficit, gajillion jobs lost, hatred/resentment around the world? NO

You can't begin to compare opposition to Bush with opposition to Clinton. Clinton's reached the fierceness it did because of loudmouthed TV & Radio hosts; Bush's reached the fierceness it has because of the war and above reasons. Why do you think Howard Dean was able to raise as much money as he did from people breakin' open their piggybanks?

I don't recall "is he a divider or uniter" being an issue with Clinton. Yet it was one of the subjects in Bush's MEET THE PRESS interview, and has been the subject for two TIME MAGAZINE cover stories so far this year. Updated On: 2/9/04 at 04:05 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 4:55pm

"since he has generated the fiercest opposition of any president ever, including Nixon, including Reagan?"

frontrow, now if this statement had been "the most well deserved" or "the most principled" then i would not have taken issue with the comment. but "the fiercest"? i think that's at the least debateable as my fellow republicans spent almost 8 years in full froth and there were some (not many) but some issues involved. and if you think that there were no ordinary americans who were as angry or angrier with clinton, then you need to get out of the democratic committee's central office more often.

"i have yet to meet one individual who feels that way."

matt, which way? that they were cuturally bankrupt? that he was culturally bankrupt? or that they would support him because they and/or he were (together or separately) culturally bankrupt? i promise to use the sarcasm key on all future posts. but i am glad that since you're happy with this issue i can expect your vote for the gop, right? come to the dark side, matt...

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 5:02pm

Good Lord people I was kidding. I didn't mean to spark the forest fire of religious discussion. I go to church every week and teach Sunday school. I am annoyed by the Telemarketing Christians who sell faith. Thats all I meant. The last thing I want to do is hurt somebody's precious feelings.

[theaterlife]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 5:53pm

"Just because Christianity is the newest of the major religions, doesn't mean it should be left out."

I understand the sentiments,Mister Matt,but Christianity is not the newest of the major religions. That would be Islam.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 6:13pm

To Mr Matt

Mr Clinton had, on numerous occasions, been offered Bin Laden on a silver platter & he declined to accept the Sudanese offer. Maybe had he taken them up on it & taken Bin Laden , we would not be having this conversation now. Dems fail to answer any questions regarding this. Wonder why . If Bush loses & the economy goes back in the toilet & we get hit again, who ever will they put the blame on ? Bush did not get Bin Laden but more importantly 2/3 of Al Queda is dead or imprisoned. This is more important than one delusional man who is rolled out (funny we have not seen any more of his home movies in a while) whenever needed & rolled back into his cave. Why hasn't he shown his face ?

Updated On: 2/9/04 at 06:13 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/9/04 at 10:39pm

theaterlife - Technically, I stand corrected. Islam's history begins about 600 years after Christianity, but the actual birth of Christianity is still debated a bit. Regardless, it still possesses quite a violent history.

paplovesmambo - I meant I have never met anyone who loved Bush BECAUSE of his cultural bankruptcy.

Mr Roxy - I was replying to your Bush/Kerry comparison. It had nothing to do with Clinton. Obviously Bin Laden hasn't shown his face because he was terrified by Bush's "pop his head out" statement of Suddam.

[FrontRow]

Posted: 2/10/04 at 7:49pm

Okay, "most well deserved" or "most principled" are fine descriptors for the Bush opposition, but I chose fiercest to cover both the volume and the extent of reasons for it. Clinton's opposition was mostly volume.

Tens of millions of people around the world marched against Bush last year (will probably happen again this March). Did I miss such a protest during the Clinton -- or whoever! -- years?

And re: Sept. 11 -- the Clinton Adminstration warned the Bushies about Bin Laden & his pals when they turned over "the keys to the White House." The Bush gang ignored it because it came from Clinton, who had beaten Bush's father. On top of everything else, he's a vindictive SOB too. And 3,000 people & their families paid for it. But what does that matter to him? The Bush Doctrine: If I'm not personally hurt, who cares? The Cheney Doctrine: If I make money off of it, who cares? (Saddam Hussein was one of his top clients a few years ago.)

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/10/04 at 8:50pm

To Mambo

Great posts . A breath of sanity in a forest of insanity & inanity. Keep up the good work. Do not try & befriend people on this board. For the most part, they will turn on you like a pit bull. I did that with someone in this thread & basically was spit in the face for my troubles . With rare exceptions ( you being one ) I would not trust anyone here as far as I could throw them