Bush Finally Addresses the Zombie Threat to America.

[MaximusIncredulous]

http://view.break.com/345028

[DjfunkmasterG]

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ok even i will admit that is funny. For some odd reason I would actually believe our president is stupid enough to believe the dead would come back to life.

[Maitreya]

ROFL. I can just imagine him giving a speech on this.

[bassman]

I literally JUST saw this on G4. Funny stuff....

[Cody]

I thought this was actually real. I did also believe our president is that stupid.

[MissJacksonCA]

making fun of Bush is a new American pastime and it rocks

[panic]

making fun of Bush is a new American pastime and it rocks

Unfortunately, the rest of the world has been doing it for seven years and we just caught on...

/p

[MissJacksonCA]

so you say! i've been making fun of him since before he took office

[mista_mo]

you guys are all conformist, making fun of bush. Unconform and don't make fun of him...

[Yojimbo]

Clever and hilarious. Especially that bit with Bush being unable to get the dude's name straight, and those weird faces that he keeps doing.

Whoever did this, I salute them!

[GhostWolf]

That was hilarious... and very well done.

[DEAD BEAT]

Wow!

I was almost believing that was real!:D

It just really magnifies his persona even more, well lets all try and rag on him as much as we can....
"because his asss is finally outta there next year"!;):moon:

[zombie04]

"because his asss is finally outta there next year"!;):moon:

Sorry to ruin your excitement, but he leaves office 2009, not 2008...and yes I do still support the administration.

[jim102016]

Sorry to ruin your excitement, but he leaves office 2009, not 2008...and yes I do still support the administration.

Jan 2009....make fun of Bush all you want, but the scary reality is that there really isn't anyone that great standing in the wings to replace him.

[clanglee]

yup, true. But at least it wont be . . shudder. . . him.:barf:

[C5NOTLD]

yup, true. But at least it wont be . . shudder. . . him.:barf:

Considering the choices it won't be a improvement. :hurl:

[coma]

Considering the choices it won't be a improvement. :hurl:
Almost anything would be an improvement over this band of criminals. When you're at the bottom you can ONLY go up

Personally I think the dem choices are better than usual. The GOP choices are the same ol s**t

[C5NOTLD]

Almost anything would be an improvement over this band of criminals. **t


Republicans... Democrats - all the same band.

[jim102016]

Almost anything would be an improvement over this band of criminals. When you're at the bottom you can ONLY go up

Personally I think the dem choices are better than usual. The GOP choices are the same ol s**t

Better for who?

[clanglee]

Proof that we need a change. . . . A lightly political, humorous litlle flik has sparked a serious political debate.

My point of view you ask? Things are f%$&*d and always have been f*&$%#d, and Dem or Rep in office, things will more than likely remain F&*$%d. I'm just tired at looking at and hearing THIS particular idiot. I would like to see someone in office that doesn't sound lilke he needs to wear a leather footbal helmet to protect himself when he is putting on his pants.

[coma]

Better for who?
uhhh. Democrats and democratic leaning voters. Becasue there is variety. And the emerging parity of primary dates make it more likely the choices will not be solely determined by ssparsley populated states like Iowa. By the time the primary gets to the larger states the choices are already made.


If something thinks there is no difference between, say, John Edwards or Obama and Bush you are not looking very hard. Obviously the lobbying system and patronage makes it very difficult to have a true variety that we would like to see, you can still get some good things to come out within the system by making an informed choice. If you really want change you have to pay a lot more attention to off pres election year elections, Like congressional and senatorial. Thats where it all really happens.

[MissJacksonCA]

lol wear a helmet to put on his pants... genious

[jim102016]

uhhh. Democrats and democratic leaning voters. Becasue there is variety. And the emerging parity of primary dates make it more likely the choices will not be solely determined by ssparsley populated states like Iowa. By the time the primary gets to the larger states the choices are already made.


If something thinks there is no difference between, say, John Edwards or Obama and Bush you are not looking very hard. Obviously the lobbying system and patronage makes it very difficult to have a true variety that we would like to see, you can still get some good things to come out within the system by making an informed choice. If you really want change you have to pay a lot more attention to off pres election year elections, Like congressional and senatorial. Thats where it all really happens.

You sound just like a 1990s/Clinton-era republican. "I'm fed up with this administration". Remember that frustration? The actors change, the issues might change, but the terrible off-Broadway play will always continue without an intermission. Things don't ever change. I see John Edwards, Obama, and Hilary as sitting on the same garbage pile.....they just haven't had a chance to make the mistakes Bush has. Its not a matter of looking very hard, its a matter of viewing reality for what it really is.

[Wyldwraith]

I won't abide that line,
Democrats don't as a rule start wars with no concrete military objectives, no timetables to achieve objectives by before alternative strategies might be tried, no cap on the amount of resources they're willing to piss down a dry well and no ability to grasp that when a given course fails to work for YEARS that STAYING THE COURSE is probably the dumbest thing you could do.

Bush has however: Insisted on the same methodology and tactics, while believing the changing the men who he's giving the exact same orders and priorities to will result in any change whatsoever.

Borrowed us farther into debt than the combined debt of the Reagan, Bush Sr. and any third administration you care to name.

Pissed on the rest of the first world by acting unilaterally even when unilateral action was so clearly the wrong course of action a retarded howler monkey could've figured it out.

Show me a Democrat in the last 50yrs who's cost us more foreign policy credibility, money owed to foreign powers, with the least progress on anything concerning domestic policy for the same money and effort.

Until then I'm going with the notion that ANY democrat is an improvement to Bush.

[jim102016]

I won't abide that line,
Democrats don't as a rule start wars with no concrete military objectives, no timetables to achieve objectives by before alternative strategies might be tried, no cap on the amount of resources they're willing to piss down a dry well and no ability to grasp that when a given course fails to work for YEARS that STAYING THE COURSE is probably the dumbest thing you could do.

Bush has however: Insisted on the same methodology and tactics, while believing the changing the men who he's giving the exact same orders and priorities to will result in any change whatsoever.

Borrowed us farther into debt than the combined debt of the Reagan, Bush Sr. and any third administration you care to name.

Pissed on the rest of the first world by acting unilaterally even when unilateral action was so clearly the wrong course of action a retarded howler monkey could've figured it out.

Show me a Democrat in the last 50yrs who's cost us more foreign policy credibility, money owed to foreign powers, with the least progress on anything concerning domestic policy for the same money and effort.

Until then I'm going with the notion that ANY democrat is an improvement to Bush.

I'm not a big fan of W', or any other useless politican, but I have to disagree.
Dust off your history book and look up a topic called "Vietnam". Ever hear of two democrats named JFK and LBJ who got us bogged down in a hopeless, worthless and useless land war in southeast Asia? Americans fighting and losing their lives in a foreign part of the world without a clear objective for over a decade? If you think this little conflict we have going on now did more damage than the entire Vietnam War then you're dead wrong, any way you look at it. (3,000 dead vs. 58,000, riots, divisions in society not seen since the Civil War, etc.).

[clanglee]

Yeah, I was gonna mention LBJ. Crap president, crap war, crap situation. Hmmmm. . sounds familiar. :rolleyes: