Canada official insults Bush

Who is the bigger moron, the politician who muddles words up on occasion, or the politician who quite studiply makes inflammatory statements when there are reporters around?

I agree with this assessment.

BTW I don't know too many idiots who would have been able to accomplish all that Bush has in 2 years. Personally I would think a smart person would judge the results not the public speaking ability, but hey that's just me. Also when someone calls Bush an idiot because he has a dissenting political opinion; that person is calling me an idiot as well.

 

What exactly has he actually accomplished?

 

Hmm, a major tax law change, created a new office, helped the republicans gain control of the senate, got an international coallition together against the Taliban, dramatically reduced US oil imports from the M.E., managed to get back US pilots from China without any consessions and without recognizing China's 200 mile claim, got a resolution passed demanding an ultimatum for Iraq with the possiblity for some closure one way or the other, etc etc. Just because you may not agree with his decisions doesn't make him an idiot. I would argue that an idiot wouldn't have accomplish 1/4 of the things Bush has in 2 years. Even when his party lost control of the senate he still managed to get things done.

 

OWM is just in denial.

And what TenorJedi said.

 

Us children? The US has the most *ridiculous* president in HISTORY. People actually elected an alcoholic that can't even read right from a paper or remember that the air that he comes from the trees that he says that must be cut down.

That, as a whole, was one of the most "less informed" bashes I have read in a while. No personal offense intended. Really.

Bush is not an alcoholic; he hasn't had an alcoholic drink in decades.

The post had been edited, probably while you were still writting yours, to correct my spelling and sentencing and I also added the (Ex?) before the Alcoholic, since I had fogotten it the first time. Must have been a Freudian lapse. Upsie.


And your implication that he wishes to destroy the trees of the world is just as ludicrous. If you were familiar with the policy and the purpose behind it, you'd know that it is actually designed to save trees--entire forests, in fact.

I implied no such thing. What I said about the trees applied to the Kyoto Treaty and to the 'cut down the trees' combined: at the same time that he - instead of having a decent forest fire control - cuts down trees, he also refuses to sign a treaty that fights polution. And the US being the biggest polluting country on Earth at this moment, I think even thick-headed americans can see the rest of the World's problem with it.


Well, if I was trying not be serious I would have said, for instance, that Bush was a good luck charm for the US Men's National Team because they beat Portugal 3-2 and they ended up going to the quarterfinals of the World Cup during his administration

This comment made perfect sense after I saw that you're a male your profile. (Oh! My God! She made a feminist remark! Burn the witch! ) FYI, the whole country noticed and admited to themselves how bad the team was. It's a thing people do so things can change to the better. Anyway, to confuse serious political and world-changing issues with sport and to think that I'd actually give a damn about us loosing, is so damned funny that you actually made me laugh. It's good to start the forum day with laughter. Thanks.


Us? Children? The US has the most *ridiculous* president in HISTORY.

No more ridiculous than a philandering liar.

Ok, so you rule the top list of ridiculous presidents ever. Take pride in that.


You've been corrected about the "tree-cutting" statement several times now. You provide no evidence to back your claim that he actually wants to destroy the environment or trees, and I doubt you ever will.

*points at what she's written above*
Proof? Where things over there about the Kyoto Protocol so hush-hush that the news didn't even bring them up? I surely hope that's the reason you made that comment, because if it's not then the brainwashing in the US is far worst than I thought. If you don't know what happened with Bush and the Kyoto Protocol, go read so there aren't ridiculous statements such as: You provide no evidence to back your claim that he actually wants to destroy the environment or trees, and I doubt you ever will..
Because i just *did*.


Furthermore, it has been already stated that he hasn't had a drink of alchohol in years. So will you please stop making baseless accusations that have no bearing at hand, since he no longer drinks?

Well, the (Ex?) preceding the Alcoholic was added for the comment to be less offensive, because in my POV, making a mistake because you had a drink before a speech is far less offensive than just stating that the reason for it is the low IQ that he seems to have. But, if you prefer to think he is a morron rather than that he had a drink before making those speeches/decisions, go for it.


I (and I'm sure most of the supposed 'Bush-bashers' you mentioned) are probably reveling in the image that the Bush worshipers give of a bunch of Zombies following their Zombie Master without question. Why! He's the american president! He *must* be right in every decision!

This is no different than the many peop

 

instead of having a decent forest fire control - cuts down trees, he also refuses to sign a treaty that fights polution. And the US being the biggest polluting country on Earth at this moment, I think even thick-headed americans can see the rest of the World's problem with it.

So we're all thickheaded because we don't blindly follow your policy line? But, I thought we weren't supposed to be sheep, zombies, lemmings, clonetroopers, etc., I guess that only applies to politicians you disagree with.

I'll post the article again as you obviously missed it:

"Forestry officials said they believe the main culprit is along-standing policy that called for protecting the forests at all costs -- no logging, and no fires to burn off dry brush and create natural burn lines that might stop the spread of wildfires.

The result, officials said, is over-populated forests with mounds of wildfire fuel -- underbrush and small trees -- on forest floors."

So, if there wasn't a "decent fire control" in the first place and not touching any trees or undergrowth in order to "save the forests" may have played an important role in causing those intense wildfires, why do you think Bush is wrong?

Again posting the Cato study, Article on Kyoto Protocol, if in fact as this article implies that the costs outweigh the benefits, there really isn't any reason to implement the treaty. I'm sure there are other studies that provide differing views, but again I ask if people can have a different view on legislation without being referred to as "thick-headed" because they disagree with you.

Anyway, to confuse serious political and world-changing issues with sport and to think that I'd actually give a damn about us loosing, is so damned funny that you actually made me laugh. It's good to start the forum day with laughter. Thanks.

I'm not confusing anything, you asked me in a previous post if I was being serious and I provided you an personalized example of what I would say if I was being downright silly.

 

I implied no such thing. What I said about the trees applied to the Kyoto Treaty and to the 'cut down the trees' combined: at the same time that he - instead of having a decent forest fire control - cuts down trees, he also refuses to sign a treaty that fights polution.

Sorry, I didn't know the context. But Bush is still right. Kyoto didn't assume to accomplish all that much--I believe that by UN estimates, it would stem alleged global warming by a less than a single degree. A single degree doesn't make that much difference one way or the other, and it's a much better idea to take the money we would've spent and use it to develop better, cleaner, more efficient energy.

 

Ms. Ducros apparently has company. In February of 2001, actor Martin Sheen had this to say during a West Wing interview (as reported by the BBC):

Sheen, a prominent Democrat Party supporter, did not mince his words about the Republican president.

"George W Bush is like a bad comic working the crowd, a moron, if you'll pardon the expression," he said.

He also said the role as president was not one he found remotely desirable.

"Your life is over as soon as you say you want to occupy the Oval Office," he said.

"We elect an institution, the family of the guy, his entourage. He has to be someone with enormous ego who fancies he'll have an impact on history."

Regarding the term "Moron":
From the Toronto Star, 23 November.

'Moron' is a Matter of Looks vs. Intellect

The great moron caper seems to be as much about the messenger as the message.

The dictionary says moron is derived from the Greek word moros, which means foolish or stupid. A moron is someone who has the "mental age of between 8 and 12 ... a very stupid person."

But the experts on stupidity (or so they claim) suggest Françoise Ducros may be correct in her assessment of U.S. President George W. Bush.

"Technically, a moron is someone who is stupid but looks normal," said Albert Nerenberg, a Toronto-based film director who is completing a television documentary titled Stupidity.

"Much has been said recently about Bush arriving at a point where he looks presidential," said Nerenberg. "What's intriguing about morons is that they can pass as just about anyone, but inside they're still morons."

The term "moron" was added to the U.S. version of the IQ test to screen out people who looked intelligent but weren't.

A moron was considered to have an IQ between 50 and 75.

Certainly Bush is no Dan Quayle. The former vice-president was known for numerous intellectual gaffes, including a remark he made while in Latin America about wishing he could "speak Latin'' so he could communicate with people in the country he was visiting.

But Bush hasn't escaped ridicule about his alleged intellectual shortcomings. Even before he was sworn in as president, late-night comedians in the U.S. regularly dined out on jokes about his intelligence.

Still, some U.S. commentators, especially of the right-wing persuasion, are blowing a fuse over the PM aide's remark.

It's all proof that Canadians are "the spoiled brats of the new world order," fumed Pat Buchanan, failed presidential candidate and regular Canada-basher.

Me thinks the "Rights" protest too much.

 

So now we know that Martin Sheen thinks that Bush is a moron ... and that it's a sentiment held by at least one Canadian official ...

But I'm still waiting for someone to prove that George W. Bush is a moron. I've started a thread in the past to provide people with the opportunity, but not a lot of people showed up, and the ones who did didn't stick around for long. Why?

Because it's easy to call Bush a moron rather than deal factually with the issues and his actions. The first thing people bring up are his verbal gaffes--hardly proof that he's a moron. Patrick Henry, a great American orator, couldn't speak worth crap until he practiced arduosly. Demosthenes, the great Grecian orator, was inarticulate and had stuttered pronunciation until he overcame his speech defect by stuffing pebbles into his mouth. Of course, it's your own screwup if you choose to classify Bush with the morons because he has occasional problems verbalizing what he means. Remember--morons are morons because of their mental capacity, not their speaking capacity.

As for his stance on issues, I'd be happy (along with any number of other people on this board) to defend or explain them. Really, go ahead. Pick one.

 

Here's an article from the Globe and Mail (a Canadian publication), posted Today (26 Novemeber), written by Margaret Wente:

Pssst! She Really Said Mormon!

If I were Francie Ducros, I would claim I'd been misquoted. "Mormon," I would have said I'd said. "George Bush is a complete Mormon." Then she could claim she'd made an honest mistake, since Mr. Bush, although notably religious, is, in fact, a born-again Christian.

Maybe that would get us off the hook. As it is, she's got us a gig on CNN again. "Canada, friend or foe?" was the subject on last night's Crossfire,or something to that effect. Our reputation as the world's nicest, most innocuous nation is in jeopardy once again.

And then her boss just made things worse. "He's not a moron, he's my friend," Jean Chrétien said, as if the two phenomena are mutually exclusive. Speaking for myself, some of my best friends are morons. Mr. Chrétien had better watch his mouth or else he'll get hauled before the Human Rights Commission for discrimination against the mentally exceptional.

The "m" word has caused a minor flap among my colleagues in the media. Was it ethical to report a private, casual, off-the-cuff remark made to a CBC Radio reporter? Or was it cheesy, sensationalistic and below the belt?

Well, let's put it this way. There's not just an ethical side to these earnest journalistic debates. There's a cost-benefit side. If the PM's staff already want to plunge a knife into your heart, why not go for it? On the other hand, if you ever want a good leak again, you might prefer to take the high road.

The sneaky, unethical, eavesdropping reporter and the despicable, low-minded newspaper that employs him (their names shall never sully my loyal lips) fall into the former camp. They have no bridges left to burn. As for Ms. Ducros, she simply learned what everyone from Ronald Reagan to Avery Haines has learned the hard way: When in public, always assume the mike is on.

What makes the private remarks of public officials so interesting is not just that they are contrary to the official position. It's that the speaker was completely comfortable making them. When the French ambassador called Israel a "[expletive deleted] little country" at a fashionable London dinner party, his comment made news not just because of his exalted rank, but because it tended to confirm the suspicion that anti-Israel sentiment is widespread among the French elite. No doubt he thought he was among like-minded people when he spoke. And when his dinner-party hostess (who is both a journalist and a Jew) wrote down what he said and published it, she was called sneaky, too.

No one actually cares what Francie Ducros thinks of George Bush. What matters is what the gang she hangs around with think. And the truth is, most of them (including her boss, no doubt) agree with her. She's simply reflecting a view that's widespread among the nation's political elite. As for the CBC Radio reporter, who knows what he thinks? But it is safe to say that, within the CBC, the range of opinions on Mr. Bush pretty much runs the gamut from "drooling imbecile" to "warmongering idiot."

So what did the moron-in-chief do to inspire Ms. Ducros's burst of candour? So far as I can tell, he made a speech to NATO expressing the moronic view that Saddam Hussein is a very bad man. He also said that, if NATO members are actually interested in world peace, some of them ought to begin to share the price that's necessary to keep it.

Considering that Canada spends only half the NATO average on defence, and makes its guys fly around in helicopters designed by the Wright brothers, maybe he had a point. Still, the view in Ottawa is that it was moronically rude of him to make it.

I'm no authority on Mr. Bush's IQ. For the sake of the home team, I'd like to think our leader's is bigger than their leader's, though I doubt it. But it's occurred to me that our passive-aggressive habits might not be making us all that popular with those morons

 

She probobly said that because we do 2 billion in business with them daily, but the Feds here are threating to stop that if Canada leagalizes pot. The Canadian Senate and House say the people want it, and they will do what the people want, even if the US says that they can't. Canada is a sovreign nation, and they should be able to act as such without the US trying to bully them. It would be moronic to hurt our ties with our northern cousins over something so stupid.

 

I wasn't aware of that, Big_game! That is hilarious!! The United States is willing to further damage its own faltering economy as well as the economy of its neighbor because said neighbor (another country altogether, mind you) wants to enact its own laws, which happen to contradict current US laws???

How moronic!

 

Proof? Where things over there about the Kyoto Protocol so hush-hush that the news didn't even bring them up? I surely hope that's the reason you made that comment, because if it's not then the brainwashing in the US is far worst than I thought. If you don't know what happened with Bush and the Kyoto Protocol, go read so there aren't ridiculous statements such as: You provide no evidence to back your claim that he actually wants to destroy the environment or trees, and I doubt you ever will..
Because i just *did*.

No, you didn't. I have no idea where this drivel about the Kyoto Protocol being absent from the media came from. The Kyoto Protocol was a serious improbability from day 1. The costs of the programs therein far exceeded the potential benfits. It was abandoned because it could "not be accepted in its present form". It doesn't mean that the US is to abandon pollution control, simply because the administration found the Kyoto Protocol to be unrealistic. This was also a sentiment shared by the Clinton administration, showing that he is not a lone dissenter. So now that I've actually elaborated on this rather than just name-dropped the "Kyoto Protocol" like you have. Show me *proof* that he wants to destroy the environment. This is in the form of a quote or a decision about a realistic policy decision. Otherwise your weak and ill-informed opinion on the subject means nothing.

Oh this reminds me that no one has answered the question about why Carter won the Peace Nobel Prize. Can you even dare think about it?

Because he deserved it for his many contributions throughtout the world over the past 24 years. I don't know how you could expect GWB to win it in less than 2 years. Oh yes, nobody answered because it has no bearing on the subject and is ridiculous in its assumptions.

Please make an argument that at least tries to appear informed, rather than trying way too hard to be witty and making an argument simply because you don't like him.

 

Ms. Ducros, meanwhile, has not gone unsung in Baghdad, where her "moron" comment has been quoted with approval by the Ba'ath party's official newspaper. It says she has supplied yet more proof that "Bush has become the most hated person in the world."



For crying out loud, Cheveyo. Note the source.

She probobly said that because we do 2 billion in business with them daily, but the Feds here are threating to stop that if Canada leagalizes pot.

PPOR, Darth_BigGAME. I don't believe a word of it.

 

For crying out loud, Cheveyo. Note the source.

So... the writer is Canadian. What's wrong with that? Ohhhh, I suppose you refer to the Iraqi quote. I actually wasn't referring to that at all when I said this lends some insight to world opinion. I was referring only to the writer's beliefs. I'm well aware that no God-fearing red-blooded patriotic flag-waving American would even remotely consider the words of an Iraqi source to be anywhere near a true opinion. They're all immoral liars, and their opinions don't count.

 

I'm well aware that no God-fearing red-blooded patriotic flag-waving American would even remotely consider the words of an Iraqi source to be anywhere near a true opinion. They're all immoral liars, and their opinions don't count.

Just so we're clear on that

 

Okay my Canadian may be rusty, but is it just me or did the article Cheveyo posted not really defend Ms. Ducrose?
It's rather nationalistic, but in a way that doesn't agree with the current administration on this issue.

And Cheveyo using it to make the point Bush is hated worldwide is rather ludicrous no?

All I can think is that he posted the wrong article...

Psst, it's an editorial, not an article... there is a difference you know.
Correction, a Column, still a difference.

 

Just so we're clear on that

Crystal, Starfire

 

Françoise Ducros resigns

I do not think it should have come to that.

Good editorial, Cheveyo. globeandmail.com isn't my homepage for nothing.

I saw that CNN Crossfire thing it mentioned. Canada: Friend or Foe? What idiocy. Relucatant friend. We're certainly not enemies. We don't like you, but we don't attack you.

 

I think the United States should INVADE Canada, conquer it, give Quebec to France, and claim B.C., Alberta, Saskatch, Manitoba, etc. as new territory.


She resigned? What a wimp. She obviously didn't go to the Hillary Clinton school of politics.

 

Your short-sighted, ridiculous opinion has one glaring flaw among many others, Shane. Quebecers have no loyalty to France.

Another obvious one is the fact that Saskatch doesn't exist.

 

[face_shocked] That's a shame. I'm disappointed to see her resign her post (even though she had scheduled to step down soon). I missed the CNN Crossfire episode; I found the title to be fantastically ridiculous.

 

I wonder what kind of strings were pulled to ensure that she resigned.

That's awful. It's like... thought police, were a politician is forced into resignation because of one comment, meant to be in private, that has no effect on how efficiently she can do her job.

She should have been promoted! (only being half-serious).

- SCarlet.

 

AT60:

It was said in jest chill out.

I can't believe that lady resigned over this. Sure it was embarrasing, but to offer her resignation? I could see apologizing, but to quit?

CNN IS ridiculous. Friend or foe? They're allies.

 

Canadian PM backs Bush

..."He (Bush) is a friend of mine, he is not a moron at all," Chretien told reporters in Prague, where he was attending a NATO summit to discuss expanding the alliance.

...A Chretien spokesman in Ottawa declined to comment on the reports, saying they were "an internal matter", but Industry Minister Allan Rock was less reserved.

"Obviously, if it's a senior person in our government, it's unacceptable... we should be emphasising how much we value that relationship (with the United States) and we should be very careful at this very sensitive time," he told reporters.

Chretien -- who in 1997 remarked in front of an open microphone that he liked to stand up to the Americans because it was popular -- comes from the left wing of Canada's ruling Liberal Party, which has often looked upon U.S. Republican administrations with suspicion.

...The White House brushed off the reported remarks.

"I just dismiss it as from somebody who obviously doesn't speak for the Canadian government," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who was accompanying Bush in Prague.

I'm not sure what the big deal is about, people.