Browse By

What the bleep does Bush know?

One of the benefits of being a liberal is that one can be free to ask all sorts of questions – questions that the Republican traditions just don’t allow. We can question authority, explore the forgotten nooks of important issues, and reform our lives free of the orthodoxies that plague devotees of right wing ideologies.

Sometimes, asking questions is an important thing all in itself. I was inspired by the question I saw on a cinema marquee today, the title of a movie popular among New Age folks: What the Bleep Do We Know?

I wondered, what the sequels to this movie will be called. What the Bleep is He Talking About? Who the Bleep Was that I Saw You With Last Night? Where the Bleep Did I Put the Keys? What the Bleep Are You Doing With That Sausage?

what the bleep does bush knowI’ll tell you, just by imagining these movies, my mind was open to a whole new level of consciousness. I started to ask questions about the recent direction of our nation. Why the bleep did 51% of voters choose Bush? What kind of bleeping idiots do the Republicans take us for? What the bleep happened to the United States Constitution? When the bleep will this stupid war stop? Most importantly: What the bleep does Bush know?

Heavy duty mystical questions all, but the problem with these questions, like all mystical questions, is that they’re asking for the kind of bleeping information that we’re never going to know. Under the thumb of Republican rule, ignorance is a bleeping pain in the ass.

27 thoughts on “What the bleep does Bush know?”

  1. l terhune says:

    You wrote: “One of the benefits of being a liberal is that one can be free to ask all sorts of questions – questions that the Republican traditions just don’t allow. We can question authority, explore the forgotten nooks of important issues, and reform our lives free of the orthodoxies that plague devotees of right wing ideologies”

    One of the benefits of being a Republican is that one can be free to watch the Demoncrats who have yet to deal with their pride. So in order to avoid those bad feelings, these dreamers feed their egos instead. We can watch their radical joker leaders and goofy has-been stars and see them examine and exploit any nooks of unimportant, unrelated or even fabricated information about Bush and twist it with half truths, implications, juvenile bumper stickers and silly little rhymes. The most fun is observing their silly self-righteous attitudes as they “strut their stuff” actually believing they are doing the right thing, smarter than the majority of the country and their “values” are worthwhile. I find humor in the fact that their party is made up of Hollywood elitists from the past, the Michael Moore’s of this world, the cowards, gigolos and liars who can relate closely Kerry, the drunks who stand by “Teddy” Kennedy and the insane, who are represented by Gore. It thrills me to read and learn more about these kooks as they lead the way to the end of the black sheep of the United States. Thanks for your help, this article and this site are good for a great deal of laughs, better by far than jokes sites.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Do you know anything about Michael Moore’s biography, l terhune? Anything at all?

  3. Kevin says:

    “One of the benefits of being a liberal is that one can be free to ask all sorts of questions – questions that the Republican traditions just don’t allow. We can question authority, explore the forgotten nooks of important issues, and reform our lives free of the orthodoxies that plague devotees of right wing ideologies.”

    Hmmm, I must’ve either missed that memo or threw it away, J. Clifford. ANYONE who blindly follows ANYTHING is, for lack of a better term, and mindless robot.

    I take offense that, as a Republican, I am somehow not “allowed” to disagree with some of the views represented by the party, or by Conservatives in general.

    For instance, I support gay marriage. I’ve said on numerous occasions that, as the son of a gay man who loves his dad very much, I am sickened that some don’t believe that two people, regardless of gender, who LOVE each other shouldn’t be allowed to legally express that love. What’s better: a loving gay home, or a dysfunctional hetersexual home?

    I am for legalizing and taxing drugs. The “war on drugs” is more reminiscent of Little Big Horn than the Normandy Invasion. I don’t use drugs; it’s not something I care to do, although I have used them in the past.

    Etc., etc.

    So, to be fair, next time maybe you shouldn’t overgeneralize. But hey, if it makes you happy…

    What the bleep do I know?

  4. Tammy says:

    Is there anything more irritating than a bunch of Republicans complaining? What, they’ve got the whole damn federal government and they can’t take a few liberals poking fun at them? Republicans – the thin-skinnned ruling elites of America. Geez!

  5. J. Matthew Cook says:

    Kevin writes: “ANYONE who blindly follows ANYTHING is, for lack of a better term, and mindless robot.

    I take offense that, as a Republican, I am somehow not “allowed” to disagree with some of the views represented by the party, or by Conservatives in general.”

    As a self-professed libertarian, you SHOULD take offense, Kevin. But don’t take offense with J. Clifford, who has only pointed it out. Take offense with the Republican Party that has got an increasingly serious problem of authoritarianism.

    You’ve been in the country for the past two years, Kevin, so I’m sure you’ve noticed how, over and over and over again, Republican party politicians, bureaucrats, pundits and members of the rank-and-file have sent out the message that if you don’t support George W. Bush and his agenda, you aren’t a patriot, and maybe you’re even a traitor.

    But then, it’s not just Republicans who should take offense at Republican authoritarianism. We all should take offense.

  6. Kevin says:

    “Is there anything more irritating than a bunch of Republicans complaining?”

    Yes, Tammy, there is. Will Smith. Street Racers. 80 degree temperatures in January. Liberals who cry, “Complainer!” whenever a Conservative defends his/herself.

    I suppose I don’t possess the ultra-sophisticated humor detection system that you evidently do, Tammy. My sincere apologies for being so humor-deficient.

    J.Matthew: I agree with most of what you said. I think we all need to fight authoritarianism, regardless of what animal the party hides behind. What I took offense with was that he GENERALIZED the supposed “follow the leader” mentality among Conservatives to include ALL who agree with the (majority of) Republican/Conservative platforms. Yes, there are some “yellow dog Republicans” who would agree with Republican leadership if they said the moon was made of cheese. I acknowledge that. Just don’t like generalizations, and I have been/will be guilty of that as well.

  7. Tammy says:

    See, that’s the weird thing. Kevin has the biggest, most powerful government in the history of the world at his back, and he thinks he needs defending from Irregular Times!

    Can’t you see how ridiculous that is, Kevin?

  8. Jalapeno says:

    I terhune, do you really believe that the Democratic Party is made up of

    “Hollywood elitists from the past, the Michael Moore’s of this world, the cowards, gigolos and liars who can relate closely Kerry, the drunks who stand by “Teddy” Kennedy and the insane, who are represented by Gore”?

    If you do, you are either ignorant or an ass (or both). I’m leaning toward the “ass” side.

  9. Kevin says:

    No, Tammy but I see how ridiculous your post is. I don’t need anyone to defend me, much less a liberal forum.

    Where you got the idea I need ‘defending’ from Irregular Times is beyond me. But then again, you are the genius who claims the current government of the US is the “most powerful government in the history of the world.”

    A simple refresher course of World History at any high school (I believe it is taught at the sophomore level these days) will show you that, in fact, there have been many, many more powerful governments “in the history of the world.”

    Or don’t you remember the Roman Empire, for starters?

    Think before you speak, Tammy. That’s the best advice I can give you.

  10. J. Matthew says:

    Last time I checked my history text, I didn’t read that the Roman Empire had thousands of nukes.

  11. Tammy says:

    Gee, Kevin. When I asked you what was more irritating than a bunch of Republicans complaining, you responded: “Liberals who cry, “Complainer!” whenever a Conservative defends his/herself.”

    In that statement, you are depicting yourself as having to defend yourself. Against who? Against Irregular Times! I didn’t make it up. You’re being ridiculous.

    I can’t believe you really mean to say that the Roman Empire was more powerful than the United States of America. They didn’t even know that 2/3 of the world existed, much less have spy satellited circling the globe, with nuclear missiles capable of instantly destroying any city on the planet!

    Count on a Republican to deny it: George W. Bush’s Republican government is the most powerful government ever to exist on Earth, and here the Republicans are, whining about how they have to “defend” themselves from a little old liberal web site like Irregular Times.

    Geez. Talk about thin skins!

  12. Fred says:

    Fascinating.
    The people who claim to be more open-minded and non-prejudical than anybody use their “higher-ground” to say that all Republicans are unable to question the status-quo. Fascinating.
    I guess they forgot Lincoln, who was a Republican President that abolished slavery. They even forget that Bush tried once to actually accuse Israel of being too unfair to Palestine. Of course many liberals joined in when he was shouted down on this.

    Even if you believe that Bush is somehow the anti-Christ (ooopsa, forgot most of you hard cores do not have faith in God), he is but one man, that was voted for a even a significant portion of people who label themselves Democrats in order to be elected. Many people who voted for him have stated on this site that they do not believe in every decision he’s made.

    Yet you condem them all by a label. Nice for you to set an example of what to follow. I’s happy to be yuh nigga, suh!

  13. Tammy says:

    Fred, your nasty comments speak for themselves. You have just proven the article’s point.

  14. random42 says:

    Fred, I’d just like to tell you about the most liberal young lady I know, who has been active in women’s causes and once skipped school to go to a gay rights rally. When that rally started to break up because of poor weather, she got up and gave a rousing speech that got everyone re-energized. She basically ran the feminist groups in college. All of that, and she’s one of the most devout Christians I know.

  15. Kevin says:

    J. Matthew: They may not have had nukes, but they certainly killed and tortured more people than we have. Agreed?
    I have a gun, but it doesn’t mean I go out and kill every living being in sight. We have used nukes twice, J. Matthew (not counting testing). So what if we have ‘thousands of nukes.’ Have we USED them lately??? Sure we have the POTENTIAL to destroy the world, but I don’t think that’s gonna happen anytime soon. Don’t forget: Other countries have them too, and they also know how to use them. It balances the scales, so to speak. There was no balance in the times of the Roman Empire.

    Tammy: You are an enigma wrapped in a mystery if there ever was one. You obviously have no grasp of history. You claim the Roman Empire didn’t know 2/3 of the world existed. But the part they DID know existed was the part where most of recorded history was happening, you genius. And they controlled MOST of it. So, duh, they were PRETTY POWERFUL. And they had no ‘treaties’ or ‘laws’ to stop them from conquering anything they wanted to or treating the conquered peoples any way they wanted to treat them. It took
    You speak of power in finite terms, Tammy. That shows your small knowledge of history and context. It would be stupid to argue that the Roman Empire, using your definition of power, could overtake ANY army of any modern industrialized nation that has one. But using historical context says that the Roman Empire was more powerful. Why do you think structures from Great Brittain to SW Asia STILL bear their mark in the architecture and other things? It took a more powerful force (Germanic tribes) to end their rule. I won’t go into the brutality of their (Roman Empire) regime. You can look that up for yourself.
    You argue they had no nukes or spy satellites. Of course they didn’t! But they DID have the most sophisticated weaponry at the time (and unlike us and our nukes, they USED them.)
    And you don’t think they had some sort of spy network as well?

    And Tammy: “In that statement, you are depicting yourself as having to defend yourself. Against who? Against Irregular Times! I didn’t make it up. You’re being ridiculous.”

    What? I’m supposed to roll over and say nothing? There is a difference between DEFENDING a position and COMPLAINING. But since you can’t grasp that concept, I’ll provide some simple examples to illustrate the difference:

    1) Defending a position: “I disagree. I think Porky Pig is a comic genius worthy of a Nobel Prize and a commemorative stamp.”

    2)Complaining: “Why does the sun have to come up everyday? It’s too bright, it’s too hot, and it burns my skin. I hate the sun! I hate it! I hate it! I hate it!”

  16. Anonymous says:

    I disagree with nearly everything else you say, Kevin, but you’re right about the Roman Empire.

  17. J. Matthew says:

    Well, the Romans were a world power for much a longer period of time, so it’s no wonder if they killed more people. I wonder what the per year rate would be compared to the United States during its period of primacy.

    Power is defined as the capacity to enforce one’s will on other people (or objects). It is a potential.

  18. Kevin says:

    “Power is defined as the capacity to enforce one’s will on other people (or objects).”

    Personally, I like the definition given in “Schindler’s List”, when Schindler is talking to Goeth on a balcony during a Nazi party: “Power is knowing you can… and not.” I guess that is the “potential” part of power.

    Both suffice in their own way.

    As far as deaths, one website writes: “During the reign of Augustus Caesar, 3500 animals died during the days devoted to twenty-six festivals. 9000 were killed at the games celebrating the completion of the Coliseum in A.D. 80. Finally, 11,000 were killed at the celebration of a military victory in A.D. 107, a celebration lasting 123 days.”

    http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture13b.html

    Granted, that is only one spec of sand on the beach of the total reign of the Roman Empire, but I think it illustrates, to some extent, the death toll during that time.

  19. Kevin says:

    Oh wait. Scratch the above post. I misread it to mean humans instead of animals. Oops.

    I’ll keep searching.

  20. Jean says:

    And yet, Kevin, your mistake is very telling. 11,000 animals compared to 30,000 civilians killed with just one bomb????

  21. Fred says:

    Think before you speak, Tammy. That’s the best advice I can give you.

    Comment by Kevin — 1/10/2005 @ 3:41 pm

    Last time I checked my history text, I didn’t read that the Roman Empire had thousands of nukes.

    Comment by J. Matthew — 1/10/2005 @ 3:49 pm

    I guess J.Matt should have listened to the advice for Tammy.

    Scale the population of the world of the Romans to the size of the world today, and you will see how tremendously dominant and ruthless they were. Jean, your comment makes no sense. What in human words are you trying to say?

  22. pauly says:

    Fred,

    To follow your line of logic, one could make the same argument for the Neanderthals a million years ago. The tribe with the largest population and the most defined weaponry would have more a dominating army the world had ever known, at their time…if you scale it to proportion…

  23. pauly says:

    Fred,

    Just for the hell of it.

    About 3 million years ago the Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) liven in groups much like the mountain gorillas of today. I would suppose that the pack that had the biggest Australopithecus afarensis was the most destructive army of that time…but would it really be an army? So about 2 million years ago the Homo erectus evolved and was adapt to build tools for weapons and levers. They were very clan like and fought for large territories of hunting grounds. The largest clan at that time must have been truly the most destructive army the world has ever known. But about 1 million years ago the Homo heidelbergensis was an accomplished hunter who developed elaborate hunting devices and did have structure to their clans. Hunter & gathers, holy men and leaders. I would suppose at that time the largest, most equipped clan was the ultimate army at that time the worlds had ever known.

    Well you can see where this is going. About 1.8 million years later the Romans lived and at that time they were the largest most powerful army the world has ever known. Then a bunch of year’s later, America with Bush arrived. Right now, at this time, this is the largest and most powerful army the world has ever known. BUT! Unlike the other armies of the past, this army can literally destroy the world if it wanted to with only a push of a button. It dose have that force and thank god we haven’t unleashed it full potential.

    So lets stop with the history lesson here and address the article. I thought it was a good point brought up. I think weather you are Liberal, Democratic or Republican, you need to ask the questions why and what. Because like he said…ignorance is a bleeping pain in the ass.

  24. Kevin says:

    Pauly: But have we not had these same capabilities for quite some time before Bush? It’s not fair, in my opinion, to forget that these nukes and such existed LONG before Bush even thought about being president. I should clarify: I should have said ‘leave out the fact that…’ instead of ‘forgot.’ Obviously this information has not escaped your memory banks.

  25. pauly says:

    No, I actually did realize that we had these nukes a log time before. But if Bush develops even one more nuke or develops any other type of weaponry, or spends more money on the military than the last president, I would feel safe to say that Bush and America is now the most developed army the world has ever known.

    But just saying that we have all these nukes and haven’t used them yet is not going to bestow any amount of relief for me. Dose it for you? Knowing that they are there and could be used.

  26. Kevin says:

    I’d rather have nuclear weapons than not, given that other countries DO have them or have the capability of making them.

    I think the reason why a nuclear weapon has only been used once in a time of war (to my knowledge, at this moment- correct me if I’m wrong) is because, deep down, people KNOW these weapons ARE capable of catastophic destruction not only in the immediate future, but the long-term as well, lasting for generations. I like to think that knowledge (and fear) has kept nuclear weapons where they belong- in storage.

  27. Fred says:

    Well, if you want to talk about everlasting (at least for whatever twice the half-life of the residual radioactivity is ) destruction, sure. But don’t think that the Romans didn’t slaughter entire groups of people or families that they conquered. That was their style. You don’t need a nuclear armageddon (sp?) to destroy an entire county’s worth of people. The Romans had plenty of capability to do that with their armies. And enslave the rest of whom they didn’t kill. Their domination over the “known” parts of the world was far greater than ours is today. They ruled many many countries by fear and intimidation. If you are saying that we are doing that today in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’ll give you a pass on that for the moment. If you think we are controlling Germany, France, England, Greece, Turkey, Spain, etc, etc, well, you get the point. The Romans at their time controlled all of that and more. And I do mean controlled. Yes we have the power to soil our cage like my kid’s pet hamster, but that is stupidity, not power. And that is why we have not used those weapons in war, except for a certain Democrat I believe, that used them once. (oopsa, I mean twice)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!