digg

Join DiggAbout

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Presidency watch!

theonion.com — He's a complete disaster!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JordanE, on 07/02/2008, -4/+27From an outsiders perspective (in Australia) this sort of gives me a great look at what he has actually done :S
  • sirjorge, on 07/02/2008, -4/+31The Onion is just fantastic, another great one.
    • ajv570, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2This is nothing, have you seen the onion movie? now that was Oscar worthy
  • donaldspm, on 07/02/2008, -4/+112The Onion calls itself "America's Finest News Source"

    The funny thing is... I think they're only half joking.
    • Steinr, on 07/03/2008, -2/+12Some stories are crap but most are the honest to god truth and a good satirical reflection of actual state of society. And as Laughter is rejection we only laugh at it and find it funny because we are too distracted to notice that this is actually happening.
      • mrASSMAN, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5Show me a story that is crap.. everything I read there seems to be gold.
      • DanH, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2the onion doesn't put out "crap". Their worst is still funnier than 90% of comedy these days.
    • KaiUno, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5Thank you Onion. Didn't know where to get my Bush-whacking fix now that Steward is on hiatus.
    • tufftugg, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2 From an outsiders perspective, your right!
    • VodkanLemons, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3hell of a lot better than Faux News
  • Stevanoski, on 07/02/2008, -50/+6Historians will write Bush in as one of the greats. He led. He did not follow opinion polls.
    • SirRudy, on 07/02/2008, -6/+46That's great, I love satire!
    • NonServium, on 07/02/2008, -5/+12Yes, we know historians lie. Unfortunately, there really are people dumb enough to believe that because a guy does what he wants completely in opposition to the wants of the people he's SUPPOSED to represent, (the American citizens), that makes him great.

      By the way, a litmus test you might consider. Any argument that can be applied to call every despot in history great is probably not a good argument.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -8/+3How could it be applied to call every despot in history great? Does history rank every despot as great? And I'm not sure running a country by polls that flip flop twice a day would be better.
      • haydesigner, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1Do you seriously believe the stuff you write??

        Bush is currently BELOW 30% approval. He has not even come close to 50% approval in OVER **THREE** YEARS! How could those numbers "flip flop twice a day"?

        http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/BushMeter/
        http://ubikcan.wordpress.com/2007/07/06/bushs-popu ...
      • masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -3/+4Maybe you didn't understand. I have a problem with one of his points. I don't think I took a position for you to argue against. How could it be applied to call every despot in history great? Does history rank every despot as great? By flip flop twice a day, I mean the only thing consistent about polls and the public are that they constantly change. We would go to war and withdraw twice a day if the country were run by polls. Approval ratings aren't the questions and answers which run the country. Try to keep it relevant.
      • haydesigner, on 07/04/2008, -4/+1The poll that shows his popularity has not "flip-flopped" for over three years. How is that not relevant to your original (mistaken) point?
      • WHauser, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1You people are off on a tangent. Anyone [materm1ind] who suggest that "polls flip flop twice a day" clearly has no experience with polling. I have worked for a research firm and have done public opinion and election polling, the results do not flip flop twice a day. Poll to poll changes are often within the margin of error - there may be no change at all (49/51 flipping to 51/49 for example).

        What you're forgetting is that this is a representative democracy where we select leaders to represent our interests. This doesn't mean that the leader can't have any vision but it does mean that consistent approval ratings in the 30's should cause that leader to consider changing course. What separates democratic leaders from dictators is that democratic leaders are subject to review and approval by the masses they represent (e.g. elections) and this means that they should be sensitive to public pressure/opinion if they have any desire to keep their jobs.

        You know, scratch what I said, any man that routinely makes up new words is a visionary, a linguistic visionary!
      • masterm1nd, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Yes, I literally meant twice a day. You got it. You if anyone, knows exactly what I meant.
    • kemp34, on 07/02/2008, -6/+16That's a knee slapper right there.
    • 0Xonox0, on 07/03/2008, -5/+17He didn't follow the intelligence reports either.
      • greenroom628, on 07/03/2008, -5/+9or any intelligent idea, for that matter...
    • swanny89, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11See the thing is, we live in a democratic republic, where a government is supposed to answer to its people. If the actions of a democracy's leader don't adhere to the needs and desires of the country at large he is Doing it Wrong™
      • masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -6/+5So tell me, what would then be the purpose of a leader if everything should be decided by a majority? Look up representative republic and then look up USA. There are reasons we don't run the country by polls. One of the best reasons, is that everyone isn't an expert on everything. Another reason, is that the public changes their minds at a constant rate. It would be madness.
      • NonServium, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1If you're electing a leader, are you really electing a representative? "Representative" implies that we are the leaders. I note that the president was never referred to as the "leader" of the country when it was first founded.
      • WHauser, on 07/04/2008, -4/+0masterm1ind, please crawl back under the rock from whence you came.

        Prior to the American Revolution, the standard world view was a conservative one (in the correct historical sense, not in terms of todays political parties). Knowledge was thought to flow from the top down. In other words, people at the top knew what was important and all knowledge flowed from them. This is the basis of monarchies and aristocracies (e.g. England in 1776).

        Our revolution was remarkable in that it turned this thinking on its head. You see, in America we believe in the "marketplace of ideas" where ideas compete for primacy. All the ideas and knowledge are out there in the masses and the good ones gain acclaim and float to the top (i.e. the leaders). This is the basis for democratic forms of government such as our own.

        Your distrust of the masses smacks of elitism and I find your line of reasoning to be distinctly unAmerican. Sell your wares somewhere else please.
      • HanFastolfe, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4@WHauser

        "Prior to the American Revolution, the standard world view was a conservative one (in the correct historical sense, not in terms of todays political parties). Knowledge was thought to flow from the top down."

        Really? What was that whole Renascence thing all about then?

        "Your distrust of the masses smacks of elitism..."

        The same kind of elitism exemplified by the framers of the Constitution? The kind that kept power as far from the hands of the masses as possible? Where, under the original plane, the only people directly elected was half of the US congress.

        "...and I find your line of reasoning to be distinctly unAmerican."

        I find your lack of historical context to be completely inline with what is to be expected from todays concept of eduction. Thanks for no letting anyone down.

        "Sell your wares somewhere else please."

        Stay in school.
      • WHauser, on 07/04/2008, -2/+0HanFasolfe:
        I'd didn't realize you'd take my comments as suggesting that sweeping historical change happens overnight. The American Revolution is one manifestation of the gradual demise of feudalism and the rise of liberalism (in the classical sense). I never said it happened in total isolation from historical trends, I only said that it was a watershed event and I stand by that claim.

        In the feudal system people got what they got because of who they were, not because of what they did. This system progressed gradually into a system where people got what they got because of what they did and who they were (and who their parents were) was largely irrelevant. The Renaissance was part of this movement, so too were the industrial revolution and the enclosure acts. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 that transformed England into a *Constitutional* Monarchy was another key event. We might even go so far back as to the Magna Carta - of course that only granted limited rights to the nobility and was hastily overthrown by the Pope. Nonetheless, it was a spark.

        The American Revolution represents the contest over the broad ideological battle between Hobbes on the one side and Rousseau and (especially) Locke on the other. Notice how Jefferson borrowed heavily from (if not plagarised) Locke's Second Treatise on Government. We could look to the French Revolution but, well, that was a total disaster and changed nothing. The American Revolution on the other hand did change things and ultimately resulted in a robust and stable political system (never mind the articles of confederation).

        I never said our system was perfect. But you seem to suggest that our system, even in Revolutionary times, is no different than a Royal system. You are right to call our founding fathers hypocrites, hell Jefferson owned slaves. But if you can't see that the system they wrought is fundamentally different than those political systems that came before then it is you that needs to go back to school.

    • MelvinSchlubman, on 07/03/2008, -5/+12Yes, he led. Led us into a pit.
      He's also the Decider. He decided to shred the constitution and the rule of law.

      "one of the greats". Yeah, in that opposite universe that the Dilbert comic is currently featuring he must be one of the greats because the one we have is abysmal. There's that book about companies going from good to great, but don't hold your breath waiting for history to confer greatness on W.
    • masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -5/+5I don't know if you're right, but I also don't know that you're wrong. I do know that every event is perceived differently when looked at historically.
      • Murrabbit, on 07/03/2008, -5/+3Yeah, in the future we all might be sadomasochistic douche bags who just can't laugh enough at how our ancestors had the nation driven right into the ground by a man-child who could barely string together a complete sentence. Every kid's favorite unit in history class right there, I'm sure. "He was awesome, he did it for the lulz" they'll say.
    • Murrabbit, on 07/03/2008, -5/+4Don't you mean Bush is one of the /BIZZARO/ greats?

      BIZZARO BIZZARO BIZZARO! I'm helping! BIZZARO!

      (this, well fleshed out theory would explain an awful lot about the Bush presidency by the way).
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/03/2008, -6/+7Stevanoski is just trying to beat his butthurt record from the other day when he was soundly spanked out of a thread for claiming nobody took up the million dollar challenge on Kerry's record, Kerry did and the shill who put up the money failed to come through. Upon proof of this, Stevano slunk out of the thread, never to return.

      Stevanoski is the epitome of the Right Wing Shills here on Digg - not very bright, short on history, full of *****. He's always wrong, folks. Check out his racist, bigoted comments.

      Not a shining example of a true American, he gives us all a bad name.
    • Gmeanie, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1well you're certainly right about your last point
    • tufftugg, on 07/03/2008, -5/+1 Yes, just like Hitler! Man are you Republicans delusional to the point of insanity.
  • bobbymcgill, on 07/02/2008, -4/+28On another note, the president upon declaring a national emergency was told by advisers that money would need to be diverted from the war in Iraq. The president then changed tact attempting to say that disasters are good for self esteem, saying, "Disasters build coincidence."
  • norm7, on 07/03/2008, -5/+9Bush has had a hell of a lot of experience in memorializing tragic events through speech over the past 8 years... too bad a steadily increasing proportion of those tragic events have been caused, directly or indirectly, by his actions.
    • Murrabbit, on 07/03/2008, -2/+10"caused, directly or indirectly, by his actions."

      And inaction.
  • Thrilltone, on 07/03/2008, -4/+16"The President comforted citizens with the good news that they would now enjoy more healthy walks and less traffic jams."

    The ONN deserves to be a real Network on cable...
    or at least have an hour on FOX every day.

    We have barely scratched the surface of the pain that George Bush's traitorous actions will bring upon our people.
    • ndnspongebob, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3the daily show or comedy central needs to buy them
      • MrSpictacular, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3NOO!
        The Onion would do well to stay far away from a tyrant like Viacom.
      • DanH, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"The Daily Show" isn't a corporate entity, you know. Neither is Comedy Central. They're both owned by Viacom.
  • ncurses, on 07/03/2008, -5/+13the onion is the greatest thing ever and you all know it
  • thedsack, on 07/03/2008, -16/+9Bush will be found (soon) to have been the true ringleader of the 9/11 attacks.
    • TruthTeller50, on 07/03/2008, -15/+1This comment is not American; indeed, it is unconscionable.
    • Murrabbit, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6Bear with me here - it's awkward to put myself in a position where I actually have to defend bush, but do you seriously believe Bush or anyone in his administration would be confident enough to have pulled something like that off?

      For the past 7 years everything these people have touched has turned to *****, and evidence of their ineptitude, corruption, and flat out criminality has been uncovered left and right. There's no way they'd be able to hide something like that.

      Following your scenario as a hypothetical, though, I fully believe that they'd completely get away with it, as for some reason none of the very impeachable things that these screw-ups have done during their reign seems to manage to stir the congress to Impeach, nor the people to violently revolt. It's truly a mad world we're living in!
    • thedsack, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1http://www.loosechange911.com/finalcut/
  • SheilaNoya, on 07/03/2008, -6/+17Let's not make this mistake again by letting McCain replace him. I don't think we can stand another 4 years of this same crap.
    • Murrabbit, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6Here here, I'm an Arizonan and have voted for John McCain several times as my senator. That, however, was when he was a sane moderate with reasonable views and courage to stand up for and sponsor some much-needed reforms. . .

      These days however it's like we've been given some sort of replicant in his place, programmed to trample everything he's ever stood for and pander to the darkest cruelest dumbest wing of the reactionary republican right. The McCain I used to admire is gone now, all we've got now is McSame.
  • Ribbys, on 07/03/2008, -5/+9We Canadians have tried to send aid, but with our dollar increasing in value compared to yours since the Bush destruction began, its been tough. Real tough.
    • pprovo1, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5BLAME CANADA!!! BLAME CANADA!!!!!!!!
    • aadyss, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1@ Ribbys
      Well, you did send a delegation to Washington to plead the case of allowing American hunters to proceed to Canada and shoot the polar bears. I guess that would be foreign aid to Canada. No need to thank us if the hunters do arrive, as requested.
  • GorfTron, on 07/03/2008, -3/+48I honestly can't tell Onion headlines from actual headlines anymore. I have to look and see. Bush is a sad joke.
    • Matri, on 07/03/2008, -2/+7You've got to have REALLY messed things up if the only website that talks good of you is a satire site...
      • denizen42, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3Absolutely.. Ive seen more truth on ONN than on CNN
  • rz8472, on 07/03/2008, -4/+11The unfortunate truth is that he isn't even making an effort to pretend he cares.
  • RandomCommenter, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2haha class, if it were true they should just send him to New Orleans
  • alanr19, on 07/03/2008, -3/+4I love the Onion, but I just wish this headline was from the NYT or CNN.
  • kipmartin, on 07/03/2008, -15/+2Dugg down because everyone here either already reads the Onion or doesnt care.

    though hilarious, posting the Onion on Digg just displaces real news or harder to find humor. its a waste of space on Digg.
  • pagno, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11[Insert prefered omnipotent being] Bless The Onion.
    • Rotzooi, on 07/03/2008, -5/+3I have no omnipotent being to insert. Please advise.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8Flying Spaghetti Monster, dude.
  • TruthTeller50, on 07/03/2008, -8/+5Often my friend Stevanowski wears his underwear outside his pants. Sometimes he gets fired from MacDonald's. Burger King.
    Even Hardee's. However, this time he is correct. And Bush's accomplishments will pale next to those of my man,
    Emperor McCain.
  • CosmicH, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8This was the first Onion report to actually make me sad.
    • denizen42, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1Me too, for a moment there I thought it was real
    • californicator, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2The damage Bush did to this country IS real.
  • Schreck1, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4I laughed so hard I choked
  • Starviper, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2By the way they were talking I could have sworn it was a hurricane.
    • Abram730, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2The first F12 hurricane in recorded history.
  • borez, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1Hadn't read the Onion till I watched the Onion Movie, I thought is was hilarious.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0392878/
  • OneRottenTomato, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3"Here they are hoarding and boarding up their houses. They said that some of them are not going to come out until the entire precidency has passed." LOL

    How does one even stomach real news anymore when you get a taste of The Onion?
  • bosssmiley, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2And, on the day Mr Bush stepped down from his second term of office, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney pulled off their latex face masks to reveal the smirking faces of America's greatest enemies: Colonel Muammar Ghadaffi of Libya and Ayatollah Khomeni of Iran. Yes! It had been them all along!

    With the way this bizarro presidency has been nothing surprises me anymore.
  • DroppedGT, on 07/03/2008, -3/+3Staying in hiding is the best thing he can do. His ratings only go down when we see him. Onion makes me sad because they showed his face.
  • secrity, on 07/03/2008, -4/+9I thought that The Onion was satire; why did they do a serious story?
    • Glynth, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2If you think about it, your comment epitomizes what is wrong with the majority of Digg users. Let go of your hatred.
  • darkfus, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Finally unbiased news reporting! Oh wait..
  • Duositex, on 07/03/2008, -6/+2Only funny Onion headline I've ever read.
  • MadKennyP, on 07/03/2008, -3/+6Onion Headline from the day after George Bush was first elected President:

    "American's Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Over"

    --- sadly accurate.
  • prose072, on 07/03/2008, -2/+0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCPigpYTmAw&feature ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsLYTv1bGQY&feature ...

    http://foxattacks.com/blog/43349-mccain-bush-i-thi ...
  • rblancarte, on 07/03/2008, -4/+3I had to do a double take when I saw this was the Onion.
  • oboredone, on 07/03/2008, -3/+3Dugg for the title.
  • thedsack, on 07/03/2008, -5/+3http://www.loosechange911.com/finalcut/
  • californicator, on 07/03/2008, -2/+0Now... quit yer bitchin', get back in the garage, and make me a battery!
  • DVmaker, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1If only he regretted his presidency.
  • mnchrist, on 07/03/2008, -8/+3Okay im against Bush as much as the next guy but for once you leftists need a bit of reality in your life. How on earth could Bush have caused these storms and floods to occur? He might be powerful but i dont think Congress, his adminstration, or the NWO for that matter, can build a weather machine to cause this destruction. If your saying that he didnt spend enough tax payer dollars in order to build up the infrastructure then you might have a valid point. I guess the war in Iraq, FEMA, the war on terror, Patriot Act, Homeland Security dept, billions sent in foreign aid, and the bottinging out of the dollar through inflation isnt enough of a taxation/slave structure. What we need is Obama to make Bush look like a small government conservative and to tax/spend the U.S. into depression. Get a ***** clue!!
    • MrSpictacular, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0"...you leftists need a bit of reality in your life. How on earth could Bush have caused these storms and floods to occur?"

      yeah, someone definitely needs a ***** clue.
    • DanH, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1uh oh, somebody wandered over here from Drudge Report.
  • fixhist, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1Great presidents have some good works to remember, Like Nixon building huge road network, or Space research by Kennedy.

    Lack of repair & restoration funding may have caused some levies to leak,or bridges to cripple.

    Over all this presidency had been very smooth sailing, Americans never came out of the fear of "the day after 911".

    Nevertheless, Lets put our hands together to sing along
    " GOD Bless America again, You must know the trouble she is in"
    [Michael Moore, Film Canadian Bacon]
  • SatoriSeeker, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1199 .. 198 days to go. The end of the bush presidency is like slowly waking up from a nightmare. Cheers to everyone here who loves the constitution! Do not forget on July 9th they will be voting on the "Iran War Resolution" in congress. Google for it if you haven't yet seen this. We are NOT out of the woods yet please make sure this gets in the news in digg and anywhere else.
  • Glynth, on 07/05/2008, -3/+2Anyone who seriously believes Pres. Bush is "stupid" or evil is incredibly ignorant or incredibly deluded, and in either case, fuels their opinions with emotion more than logic, with hate being being one of the chief emotions used. I do not agree with the President on many, many fronts; however, so-called-liberals using such numbers to say their way is what Americans want is foolish. When people actually make polls with any depth to them (beyond "approve or disapprove?"), that is clearly not the case. The reason his popularity is low is because neither conservatives nor liberals like what he's doing but for DIFFERENT REASONS. Congress's ratings are far lower - last I checked, the Left was in charge of that wagon of loons and liars (not that nearly enough of those there that are supposedly on the Right aren't also loons and liars).

    Anyone who blames Pres. Bush for practically (or seemingly) all troubles, real and perceived (many of them simply perceived), is likewise a fool; there are enough real things to worry about - including some that the administration truly is contributing to - that bullcrap attacks like "Bush doesn't care about black people" are horrendously moronic; there is no excuse for this.
    • Glynth, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Whoever buried me - I dare you to logically contradict a single thing I just posted. Go ahead. Prove that Bush is evil and hates black people. Do it. Prove he causes all natural disasters since his presidency began. Come on. Prove the Leftist way, the way the Leftists in Congress spout out continually, is the way the American people want to go. I dare you. Can you do it? Of course you can't. You can fool people into thinking it, but you cannot actually prove true what is inherently false.
  • Northpunk, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1even though you nkow the video is fake using clips from previous news shows... it is actually a great and real thing :)
  • louiss19, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2This is brilliant!
  • DionRodrigues, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Amazing.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.