If President Bush ate live babies and raped dead puppies on TV how would his followers cheer him on?

Question

You know they would. Not everyone who voted for him, not all who still support him now, but a frighteningly large percentage would savagely defend his bold and exciting infant cannibalism and necrophillic bestiality from the loser libs. I'm dead serious. What would they say?

Answer 1

If you represent the democratic or liberal side, then I would definitely cheer him on because you are WORSE!

Answer 2

They wouldn't cheer him on for that, but they WOULD look the other way and tell you he's protecting your as$, the world and the USA in particular would be in a sorry state of affairs if he wasn't looking out for you (which is absolutely the most deranged misuse of logic I've heard in fifty years,) or they'd say at least he didn't get his knob polished by some fat intern (which is a close second on the retarded logic scale,) or they'd try to convince you that nine trillion in debt is better than the half-trillion to the good that we were five-and-a-half years ago.

And then they'd say that Bill Clinton ate live babies and screwed dead puppies, too, which makes it acceptable. If you belong to a third party like me, they'd call you a democrat and tell you that Al Gore and John Kerry would have been worse at it, like that's any kind of answer at all.

Answer 3

Seriously, I don't think they would defend him in that scenario, but I get your point - that a significant minority of the voting population - say 25-30%, will defend ALMOST any Bush/Repub behavior. The reverse would not be true of liberals. If a liberal president for instance, wanted to institute communism, I think his support would be miniscule. I think the x-factor here is anger combined with ignorance. I would compare Repubs to the Germans in the Nazi years - not in the sense that they want to commit genocide, but in the sense that they are angry and ignorant - not a good combination.

Answer 4

"If that is God's will, so be it. This man is defending our rights and our freedom, and if he has to use non-traditional methods, who am I to complain? The baby was probably an Arab, anyway. It would have grown up to be a suicide bomber. As for puppies, they are not human, so they do not feel pain. Why, we slaughter animals every day to feed our nation. If one puppy stands between us and America's freedom, so be it!"

*chows down* unf unf unf unf

Answer 5

They would naturally ask, were the babies born of Muslim terrorists? Were the dead puppies owned by Muslim terrorists? If the answer to both questions was yes, then yes, they would cheer him on. And rightly so I might add. I would hope that he would at least use good table manners when he ate the live babies. By the way, I admire your sick mind. You must be possessed by Satan. Congratulations.

Answer 6

Well the babies were probably going to grow up to be terrorists and try to rid the world of democracy. The puppies were obviously visious creatures that he saved us from. The sad part is that many would believe it

Answer 7

Juan has got himself a point there. GW isn't the best president ever, but his supporters are fortified in their beliefs by ignorant comments like this.

Answer 8

Ewww

Answer 9

Those babies and dogs were obviously Terrorists....and we have the War on Terror.

That dog was called Osama and the baby was clearly called Saddam. Well done Mr Bush, you've saved us again.


That's what those idiots would say.

Answer 10

You would not be able to depend on the House to impeach him with criminal charges obviously! Like Clinton he could get away with murder cover it up,sweep it under the rug and nothing would happen even if the truth surfaced and their were eyewitnesses which there would be!

Answer 11

Will he be using A-1 steak sauce? What kind of puppies are we talking about? I need more details before I can answer this question. Dumbass!!