Bush and the Pig

Post by **Dardedar** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:30 am

I thought this clip was amazing:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Bush-Pig.wmv

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Bush-Pig.mov

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:47 pm

I couldn't find Bush and the Pig, but I found a hilarious one called "Bush Pilot" (with English subtitles). It's about the German immigrant who robotically controls Bush remotely. Billy Bob sez check it out.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0154749704

Post by **Dardedar** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:56 pm

DAR
Okay, this link should work for everyone, permanently:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/200 ... d-the-pig/

Post by **Dardedar** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:04 pm

"Bush Pilot"

DAR
Dear gawd that was funny!

Post by **Dardedar** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:56 pm

"It's fashionable to blame the US for all the world's ills, but in this case, Bush (is) at the heart of the trouble...Bush's animating idea has been that the peoples of the Middle East can be bombed into democracy and terrorised into moderation. It has proved one of the great lethal mistakes of his abominable presidency -- and the people of Israel and Lebanon are paying the price."

-- Jonathan Freedland, guardian.co.uk

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:31 pm

Bush is an End-Timer masquerading as a christian. His presidency is abominable and lethal - but from his point of view, not mistakes. Not only Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq are paying/will pay for his leadership.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Darrel wrote:Bush's animating idea has been that the peoples of the Middle East can be bombed into democracy and terrorised into moderation.

Not that this attitude is restricted to Bush's faction of the War Party. It is just as true that JFK's and LBJ's animating idea was that the peoples of Vietnam could be bombed into democracy and terrorised into moderation. This was Clinton's attitude in Serbia, too. Rulers from both factions of the War Party are guilty of this attitude. And, from a ruler's perspective, it is rational, since the rulers get the benefits while the ruled suffer the costs. To paraphrase Bill Clinton: It's the institution (of State), stupid!

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:48 am

Let's keep Clinton's quote correct - The economy, stupid. That's why the neocon's started this - funneling as much money as possible into the hands of the power elite - totally disregarding the fact that the system can only take so much before it collapses. Bush, on the other hand, went along with it because it fits right in with his religious goals - which includes economic collapse.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:22 pm

Barbara wrote:That's why the neocon's started this - funneling as much money as possible into the hands of the power elite - totally disregarding the fact that the system can only take so much before it collapses.

This is where we disagree: You think it started with the neocons, while I think its been going on for years. Certainly since Truman quit declaring war; maybe since the Spanish American War. Funneling money to cronies is not new at all!
By claiming it is new and that only one faction does it, you perpetuate the very same short-sighted plunder game of politicians you bemoan. The problem is systemic; simply changing personnel (or factions) won't change things. It's the institution, stupid!

We probably see the coming collapse differently. I see it as a good thing - throwing off the central State and breaking up into smaller, generally freer entities. I'll celebrate the end of the USEmpire.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:43 am

Funneling money to cronies is not new and both parties do it to different extents under different administrations and at different times. What's new is we are seeing such an explosion of this - and yes, it's predominently one party at the moment, but their very design (K Street Project) - that we are facing economic collapse. I know that will make you very happy - unless or until you have to live with the consequences of it.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:12 pm

I agree that it's predominantly one faction at any given time - the faction in power.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:57 am

Not necessarily. A comment I enjoyed says in a free society the amount of graft is kept to an acceptible level. If you follow the money, you'll find that - at least in the 20th & 21st centuries - a statistically significantly greater amount is going to the Rs from corporations that receive significant benefits from R-sponsored legislation. The last D who had current levels of corruption was Andrew Jackson.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:22 pm

Right - big established corporations are one of the Rep faction's constituencies. If you look at big established unions, or govt employee groups, or welfare advocacy groups, you'd see they give more money to the Dem faction. And of course the military industrial complex gives to both factions of the War Party.

It is the nature of political power that it is "sold" to people and groups. Politicians, like everyone else on a macro level, are out to do what's good for themselves. This rent-seeking cannot be prevented by naively wishing that angels would rule. The problem is fundamental to human nature; it can't be cured by simply changing personnel. It's the institution, stupid!