Instead of building Bush a library after his presidency...?

Question

...shouldn't we build him an elaborate lynching platform, from which he and his entire administration can be ceremoniously hanged for treason?? We could sell it on Pay-per-view to the entire world, and we could rebuild Iraq and pay off the deficit with all of the proceeds!! You wanna talk about JUSTICE??!! We could re-assume our place as leaders of the free world, and the rest of the world would treat us like gods and heroes!!!

Oh, I'm AWFULLY sorry, Re(tard)publicans!! I forgot that you have blinded yourselves to the illusion that he has done NOTHING wrong!! I'm wondering if the morally bankrupt will ever see Bush as the inept moron that he actually is!!!

Answer 1

build him a mental hospital with a special room with padded walls

Answer 2

I agree. along with the lynching platform why not size them up for coffins...or better yet some urns?

I cannot believe that Republicans are controlling most of our government. They are a group of people that are out for themselves to line their own pockets and keep the middle and low class families from growing and moving up in the world.

Not to mention they all stand behind Bush who says "uhmm" every two seconds during a speech. They apparently want everyone's IQ to drop 500 points.

Answer 3

No, lynching is too easy...
The hsuB legacy best fitting, would be a pile of horse dung, (since he is a self-proclaimed cowboy) in a large room left vacant, as symbolism for the way America has been left!

Answer 4

Your comment on the "yellow badges" controversy is very interesting kyle. Once that story was out there a lot of people are going to believe it whether it's later retracted or not. Good work.

Answer 5

And here I thought you were going for the George W. Bush memorial prison.

Answer 6

Hope u last longer than i did before some on deleted my question...i agree with u ....LOL

Answer 7

No....certainly not.

But this was a loaded question anyways. I've noticed lately on this site most pro-republicans, pro-Bush supports have been citing national news media outlets as their primary source of information, without any fore-knowledge into where their "headline" information is being directed too. Believe it or not, this "media information" is very strategic in its function and use in its objective for consumption for a national audience For example, some of you will recall a news article published on the front page of the National Post, a while back in the summer, regarding the president of Iran and its government trying to pass new legislation that would require Jewish citizens to wear "yellow badges" on their arms to distinguish them from other Muslims. Now coincidentally, this story was being run at the same time as the US started condemning Iran for trying to build "weapons of mass destruction". This story was also copied into other national and local media outlets, such as my national paper in Canada. All across the US and globally, citizens were pouring letters into their national paper's comment sections stating that "Iran's government was correlated to the Nazis in the 1930s" and that "these barbarians must be stopped by an means possible". In fact what had happened, is something that happens all the time in American mass communications,...the story was fabricated. Yes, believe it or not, the National Post the following week published in its corrections section that they had obtained false information from two of its "credible" sources....an Iranian exile and a republican media relations representative (the horror!). But why would not just one media outlet, but countless other outlets publish false news information in the front pages of their products. The reason comes from numerous studies across the field of mass communications that have shown that the MAJORITY of people really don't have the time to read the WHOLE newspaper everyday, so they just skip through the headlines and the front pages. In fact, publishing a correction of a falsified news story, from weak sources, guarantees that less than 7 percent of newspaper readers will actually see that a correction to the story had been made. And with the buying up of mass communication within the American media market, and the merging of AOL-TIME WARNER, really only about 3 huge mother corporations control all distributing of news to the American national audience. This strategic use of using media to confuse the American audience that anti-Semitism is correlated with an Iranian government is nothing new to the American people, or the rest of the word, for that matter. Look at Iraq...the rhetoric used just followed a different tune in American national newspapers..."Iraq and 911 linked to each other through A.Q. ". It didn't seem to matter to the collective American mindset that before 911, Osama Bin Laden denounced dictators in the Arab world, including Saddam, because they seeked to control his people, while he seeked to free them! Meaning essentially that his terrorist organization had no links to Iraq, even based on ideology...oh the stupidity! But say Saddam and Osama's name repeated amount of times in headlines of national newspapers, and credit them from the same sources that you credited Iraq of having WMDs, and you started to coax "the dumb elephant" of the American public into another War (much like the same rhetoric used to justify Vietnam...see any relation yet). This is how you essentially manufacture consent for upcoming wars from a national audience. The US administrations in fact prohibits printing must of its questionable activities inside its own national media outlets. Take for example war-torn countries like El Salvador or Guatemala where independent, non-partisan reviews have reported that the US has had a finicial aid in supporting these regimes of dictatorships that controlled their local pollution through violence and fear, which in return made good economic relations for the Western power (Chomsky, revised 2002) (modern day example being Saudi Arabia or even Kuwait ) - sources like those of the infamous Chomsky show us that we take much for granted when we pick up our daily newspapers, day after day, and absorb what this thing we like to call "news:.

And another thing...even if you believed this war to be a just cause to bring your ideal of "democracy" to other nations, how then would you define democracy? Is democracy based from your own democratic structure....a two-party system, where lobbyist groups and the corporate elite alike can fund both party platforms to make sure their policies get passed into new legislation? Or is it where we, as a Western nation, run global-wide sweat shops in Vietnam, Latin America, Africa, now China, and almost every part of the world, so we can go into our local Wal-mart and have all we need for as little as possible (Don't believe me, because you didn't see it in your local New York Times....or maybe you didn't catch it on CNN live...how about this fact: 51% of the population of the WORLD lives on less than 2 US dollars a day, and a significant amount of US industries depend on free-market trading that keeps third-world populations working hard for nothing, so that they can indeed save a bundle in the long run, paying cheap labor costs and extorting the nation out of their natural resources).

Orwell once said that its not about winning wars, its about keeping them constant, just changing the actors. Need modern day relevance...take a look at the US domestic policies. You essentially need to sacrifice your liberties at home for the on-going war effort. Forget about things like privacy and health-care...we’re at war people!

Answer 8

........have a book-burning instead. That's more fitting.