Bush: Drunk off his ass in China

[Percival]

This has nothing to do with my knowledge of anything. We are obviously different people. I do not believe in judging people without first hand knowledge or eliable facts on which to base such judgment on. I do not know Bush personally, I have neevr seen him drunk that I am aware of, all I have is a bunch of crap written on the internet by God knows who saying this that and the other about him. I have no way of knowing that any of it is true. Show me some proof and I will consider what you have to say.

I would show you the same respect as I am showing him or anyone else, I dont judge people by the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their gender or religious creed and I certainly make an effort to refrain from judging anyone until I at least first get to know them up close and personal.

His politics suck, that much I do KNOW because I have seen them up close and personal, other than that I really dont know much about him other than what others have had to say none of which I have ever been able to prove.

Again, do we have any real evidence that he was drunk off his ass in China or are we just being fucking sloppy and making shit up out of boredom and spite?

[Wilbur Whatley]

Oh man, Percival, that is WAY too politically correct for my taste.

You pose a false dichotomy. You say "do we have any real evidence that he was drunk off his ass in China or are we just being fucking sloppy and making shit up out of boredom and spite". But those aren't the only two possibilities!

We're saying HE LOOKS DRUNK and WE KNOW WHAT DRUNK LOOKS LIKE and WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF OTHER GOOD REASONS TO THINK HE'S DRUNK.

I dunno. If I was on a jury, I would regard this as already established as beyond a reasonable doubt. You'd be the guy who hangs the jury 11 to 1.

[OP ED]

Yeah, I used to be a "leftist" too. Now, I'm just a liberal . . . the real kind of liberal that believes in gun rights. Liberals believe in the expansion of individual rights and liberties, after all.

I don't even know how to begin when it comes to responding to your race comments, but it's clear that you're a white guy. Barry-O doesn't need to conform to anyone's standards or expectations when it comes to race--that's called "freedom." Get over it, already.

You don't think that some black people feel just a wee bit offended that they're being pandered to by some rich white guy while simultaneously being assured that he's some sort of historic black savior on par with Martin Luther King?

Listen, I don't know of any so-called "black people" that are offended by Barry-O's skin tone. I'm certainly not offended, but I am offended when folks refer to Bill Clinton as "America's first black president." White people say that all the time.

The people that worry over Obama's skin color happen also to be white.

No, he's not "on a par with MLK." MLK was a spiritual leader; Obama is political. MLK focused on issues of oppressed minorities as related to Christian tenets; Obama focuses on the future of Americans in general, and the world at large.

Believe it or not, governmentflu, a black man CAN be a political leader without being evangelical. He can also be pragmatic instead of revolutionary, and calm instead of enraged.

good points.

minor quibble, though. The "first black president" bit about Bill Clinton was first used by (pretty good, IMO) Novelist Toni Morrison.



I know people of several "races" that have issues with Obama's skin tone, name, etc. for a myriad of reasons, most of them racist or its equivalent.

I kinda like the dude personally. Hope they don't fuck him over too bad by giving him a world war or something to deal with. I'll take the "just black enough to probably pull it off" or whatever guy over the crusty old warmongering white guy anyday.

of course I wouldn't vote FOR him cause he was black either, as that'd be just as silly. I wouldn't vote for Powell or Rice, for example. I'd vote for Joe Brown though. (I know people who have, but he was never in my area)

I hope I've driven this even further off-topic and have now set myself up for a crossfire.

(no pun intended)

Love is the Law,
SHCR

[vigilant]

Percival wrote:
Aside from that I think it would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE for him to cover up a heavy drinking problem while in the White House, he travels too much and is involved in public events too often to be getting hammered all the time.

For real tho? Roosevelt was in a wheel chair and most of America didn't have a clue. They set him up, sat him up, before they allowed the cameras to roll. If the press accidentally got a shot of him in a wheel chair they honored their agreements not to make it public. After the fact these photos came out and are on the record. Welcome to the real world Percival...



I do not know Bush personally, I have neevr seen him drunk that I am aware of,

I guess that isn't surprising is it? You don't know him. You never met him. You have never seen him drunk. Should his advisors introduce you to him while he is drunk for you to believe it? Weird statement Percival...you doth protest too much...

[crikkett]

Oh man, Percival, that is WAY too politically correct for my taste.
...
You'd be the guy who hangs the jury 11 to 1.

10 to 2 pal... while it looks like he's drunk, he could've been on meds.

[anothershamus]

Notice he got drunk after talking with Putin! He knew that the WWIII was in the beginning stages so he said 'what the hell' and started drinking like the fish he is.

[Percival]

Oh man, Percival, that is WAY too politically correct for my taste.

You pose a false dichotomy. You say "do we have any real evidence that he was drunk off his ass in China or are we just being fucking sloppy and making shit up out of boredom and spite". But those aren't the only two possibilities!

We're saying HE LOOKS DRUNK and WE KNOW WHAT DRUNK LOOKS LIKE and WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF OTHER GOOD REASONS TO THINK HE'S DRUNK.

I dunno. If I was on a jury, I would regard this as already established as beyond a reasonable doubt. You'd be the guy who hangs the jury 11 to 1.

What exactly is politically correct about not being a bigot, a homophobe or a prejudiced asshole?

You and others didnt say he LOOKED drunk, you said he WAS drunk, the title of the thread is not IS BUSH DRUNK OFF HIS ASS IN CHINA, it is BUSH DRUNK OFF HIS ASS IN CHINA. After stating that you thought he was drunk, you all then proceed to offer pictures of him drinking non-alcoholic Buckler beer as evidence of his drunkenness. Sloppy indeed and surely not what I expect from people who come to a forum called RIGOROUS INTUITION.

I hope you never get to sit on a jury, if you are willing to convict that easily and with such little evidence the last place you belong is in a courtroom sitting on a jury. Sounds more like an inquisition than a trial.

[Percival]

Percival wrote:
Aside from that I think it would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE for him to cover up a heavy drinking problem while in the White House, he travels too much and is involved in public events too often to be getting hammered all the time.

For real tho? Roosevelt was in a wheel chair and most of America didn't have a clue. They set him up, sat him up, before they allowed the cameras to roll. If the press accidentally got a shot of him in a wheel chair they honored their agreements not to make it public. After the fact these photos came out and are on the record. Welcome to the real world Percival...


I do not know Bush personally, I have neevr seen him drunk that I am aware of,

I guess that isn't surprising is it? You don't know him. You never met him. You have never seen him drunk. Should his advisors introduce you to him while he is drunk for you to believe it? Weird statement Percival...you doth protest too much...

Being confined to a wheelchair and being drunk all the time are two different things, apples and oranges indeed.

There is no way Bush is drinking heavily and its not being noticed by more people than a few internet nutjobs who see him drinking Buckler N/A beer and immediately assume he is on a drunken binge.

Where is your rigor?

Besides, who really cares if he is drinking? There are far more important things to concern ourselves with than whether or not that idiot is drinking or not.

[thegovernmentflu]

I really hate to make controversial statements and them completely avoid backing them up, but I don't have the energy lately to sustain an internet argument.

I will just say that it's astounding to me that many people are afraid to acknowledge that a large part of Obama's popularity and general mystique revolves around his being black. Liberals are excited about the prospects of the mythical Black President.

No, I'm not saying that society is biased in favor of black people; quite the opposite. In order to really dissect and disprove racism, you have to be willing to acknowledge how terrible race relations really are in America as the result of phony people who think that being "anti-racist" means acting extra nice to black people. When liberals(as opposed to actual leftists) skirt around race issues, it does nothing but perpetuate racism. They treat black people as if they're some sort of exotic species of alien that must be treated with patronizing respect.

The very fact that some guy who's probably less than half black is still considered to be a "black man" illustrates the inherent racism in our society. If you want to designate someone as "white" or "black", the most logical way to do it would be to find which ethnicity is more predominant in the person. I don't know Obama's full background, but there's a good chance that he's more than half Causasian. This makes him white in my book, and black in the books of people who consider black heritage to be some sort of disease that consumes a person to his core.

On edit: I didn't change anything that I originally wrote in this post, but I would like to just acknowledge that I brought up this anti-Obama stuff in this unrelated thread just because his name was briefly mentioned. I don't want anyone to think that I'm trolling or being deliberately antagonistic. Me + lots of caffeine = non sequitors galore. I want to apologize if it was perceived as being deliberately disruptive.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

... if the president of the United States is a binge drinker who falls down on his face (or arm) and becomes incapacitated due to this behaviour, I would think that according to the Civics 101 view of the world and Democracy, it would be the media's DUTY to expose this.

Bush's self-proclaimed political hero is Winston Churchill. A controversial maverick, and notorious drunk, famous for being wrong about almost everything, who was only saved from the political wilderness by the onset of a massive global war (which only he was considered drunk enough to fight). Bush has a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office (which the President has never yet attempted to punch out for looking at him funny - high praise indeed). Okay, I'm being a bit specious. But not very.

If you are looking for a proveable lineage in the presidency, you can forget about the Masons and the Illuminati and the Kennedys and the Bushes. It has been mainly a Dynasty of Drunks. There is strong supporting evidence which points to the undue influence of this ancient secret society.

[Nordic]

Churchill would get so wasted that they hired impersonators to deliver some of his most famous speeches on the radio.

No wonder Bush admires him so much.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Impersonating Churchill would be a tough job... he had the lisp, that voice, and the famous turn of phrase...

But if it's only a speech to be read out, over radio, to a populace that would react with quite extreme anger and disbelief to the mere suggestion that the person they were hearing was not the man himself, it would be easy to get away with.

And it sounds like just the sort of scheme (and the sort of mischief) Churchill himself would've come up with and taken pleasure in.

I can believe they had to do that, and not just when he was "indisposed." Probably whenever he couldn't be arsed getting out of the bath (or bed).

The saddest thing about Bushs' self-identification with Churchill, though, is the fact that Churchill was his own man, for better or worse - a genius, a devil, a statesman, a thug, a laughing-stock and, at times, a monster. Bush is just nothing. He wouldn't've even been able to impersonate
Churchill on radio.

Ironic too that Churchill more or less created Iraq, through military force, in it's modern configuration, in order to gain a permanent Imperial chokepoint on the Persian Gulf. And Bush has recently destroyed Iraq, through military force, for the very same reason.

I think Churchill would be mad at him.

[nathan28]

Oh man, Percival, that is WAY too politically correct for my taste.
...
You'd be the guy who hangs the jury 11 to 1.

10 to 2 pal... while it looks like he's drunk, he could've been on meds.

I actually think meds is more likely. He's given speeches with that eyes-glazed look before. Makes me wonder if i have to come in to work sober when the president doesn't.

On edit, though, maybe it's the ritual mind control side-effects.