ass of the day
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen". [emphasis mine]
So, Bush is greater threat to life on this planet than: Hitler, Saddam, bin Laden, AIDS, the Bubonic Plague, malaria, cancer, the hole in the ozone, tidal waves, earthquakes, hurricanes, overpopulation, UV rays, drug abuse, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Robert Mugabe, suicide, Alzheimer's Disease, heart disease, obesity.....well, I'm sure you can come up with your own.
Livingstone doesn't get out much, does he?
Comments
The undesirables have pretty much won out over the decent in England. They are so indoctrinated into that socialist B.S. that they automatically detest anyone who stands for something better. I suppose their proximity to the continent made their decline inevitable.
Posted by: robin | November 17, 2003 08:41 PM
"Red Ken" is pretty notorious for being OTT (Over the top) on must about everything. It was quite a shock when he was elected Mayor. Nobody knew if this was just another example of "British irony" or that the city really took leave of its senses!
Posted by: Hatcher | November 17, 2003 08:45 PM
Oh good lord that's dumb. Way to undercut your remaining few smidgens of legitimacy, Ken baby. Next up: Ken Livingstone in Man/Batboy Love Shock! on the cover of the Weekly World News.
Posted by: Andrea Harris | November 17, 2003 09:41 PM
Which publication, I forgot to add, the Independent increasingly resembles. "Stinging" indictment, indeed.
Posted by: Andrea Harris | November 17, 2003 09:42 PM
He apparently spends too much time listening to the BBC.
George Bush - Scourge of the Jedi
Posted by: MC666 | November 17, 2003 10:01 PM
You mean I'm the first one here to get to call him an asshat? YIPPEEEE!!
What an asshat!
Man, I enjoyed that. :-)
Posted by: Curt | November 17, 2003 10:18 PM
If he had said that he thought Bush was doing a good job, the press would have buried the story if they had even bothered to report it. It makes for a better story with a negative twist!
Posted by: BillH | November 17, 2003 10:52 PM
Actually, I think that colossal stupidity combined with the ability to mobilize terrifying powers of destruction does give him the edge over serial killers, who tend to murder their victims one at a time, and over AIDS, for which there are preventative measures. I reserve further comment lest I be lynched, but I think you get my point.
Posted by: Laura | November 17, 2003 11:42 PM
Wait, I'm confused now. Are we talking about George Bush or Kim Jong-Il?
Posted by: MC666 | November 18, 2003 12:05 AM
Laura, you called Bush "stupid" - boy, that's a clever epithet and an unassailable argument, we're all wiping away tears of joy here.
Posted by: Joshua Scholar | November 18, 2003 04:21 AM
Yep,Laura,Bush is so stupid that he tricked large numbers of the Dems in Congress to back the resolution to authorize force. The moron cowboy and his drooling, brainless lackeys also managed (through use of their supernatural stupidity) to get the UN Security Council to pass resolution 1441. He's so stupid that he makes his opponents look...er...
And props to you for pointing out that serial killers tend to kill their victims one at a time, and that AIDS is preventable. But there were a bunch of other things that Michele mentioned. I'll pick one at random...say, Hitler. You didn't comment on him. Why would that be?
Posted by: Sean M. | November 18, 2003 04:56 AM
Silly. The Dems backed Bush because they were afraid of him, and his Ultimate Powers of Evil. Which of course is why I'm gonna vote for him. I want someone that evil to be on my side.
Oops -- forgot the [SARCASM] tag!
Posted by: Andrea Harris | November 18, 2003 07:02 AM
I would just like to point out (before the inevitable whinging starts) that everyone who posted a comment after Laura has skewered her statements and not her person. And very well, too.
Posted by: Sekimori | November 18, 2003 07:21 AM
I live just outside London and I do understand why Ken Livingstone said these things. Though don't in a way agree with him.
Most Europeans beleive that Bush is upseting too many people. Whether it is right or wrong for him to do this is for another discussion. However, all it takes is for one of these people he has upset to send a Nuclear strike to the US and we have a full scale nuclear war on our hands. A Nuclear war is far more destructive than all the items mentioned in your list put together.
Posted by: Rich Coates | November 18, 2003 08:45 AM
Sean: The most amazing thing is how Bush got the war resolution passed by lying about it three months after the vote.
Rich: I hate to break this to you, but those same people were upset before Bush (WTC, Khobar, Cole, you've seen the list before).
And I'm glad you think a nuclear strike on the US would be bad (although you seem to imply that's only because it would cause full-scale nuclear war which might affect you). But then, that's why we are currently hunting those people down and killing them before they have the chance.
Posted by: Ken Summers | November 18, 2003 08:56 AM
Ken,
Please don't think that because I am British that I am anti-american. It is not the case. Of course I am worried that a full scale nuclear strike would effect me. Wouldn't you? However a nuclear strike on anyone is just as bad.
Lets hope that the people are caught before they had the chance.
Posted by: Rich Coates | November 18, 2003 09:47 AM
Ken,
Please don't think that because I am British that I am anti-american. It is not the case. Of course I am worried that a full scale nuclear strike would effect me. Wouldn't you? However a nuclear strike on anyone is just as bad.
Lets hope that the people are caught before they have the chance.
Posted by: Rich Coates | November 18, 2003 09:47 AM
Ken,
Please don't think that because I am British that I am anti-american. It is not the case. Of course I am worried that a full scale nuclear strike would effect me. Wouldn't you? However a nuclear strike on anyone is just as bad.
Lets hope that the people are caught before they have the chance.
Posted by: Rich Coates | November 18, 2003 09:48 AM
Rich Coates, commenting in triplicate.
Posted by: Ryan | November 18, 2003 10:48 AM
Religious nut with nuclear weapons and a mandate from god, whose already shown a willingess to invade other countries for no reason? Sounds like a big-ass threat to me.
Posted by: Joseph J. Finn | November 18, 2003 11:28 AM
"Religious nut with nuclear weapons and a mandate from god, whose already shown a willingess to invade other countries for no reason"
Didn't people like Joseph say that about Reagan, the man that eliminated the Soviet threat, without a hot war?
Posted by: JFH | November 18, 2003 11:59 AM
Yeah arsehats like JJF think any Republican is a religious zealot, even though there seem to be quite a few religious Presidents who were Democrats too.
Ken is a Mayor Arsehole and is making London look incredibly childish and moronic. Wonder if he realises that this might just hurt London's bid for the Olympics. (Which is something I hope they fail miserably at of course.)
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge | November 18, 2003 12:17 PM
Yes, as we all know, having any sort of religious convictions that you actually live by, and don't just pay lip-service to, qualifies you as a "religious nut."
Posted by: Curt | November 18, 2003 12:28 PM
JJF, if you honestly believe that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for "no good reason," you seriously need to straighten your asshat, because it's obviously slipped down over your eyes so you can't see shit.
Posted by: Ryan | November 18, 2003 01:32 PM
...what a maroon.
Posted by: IB Bill | November 18, 2003 02:23 PM
"...you seriously need to straighten your asshat, because it's obviously slipped down over your eyes so you can't see shit."
I dunno, Ryan. If the asshat has slipped over his head, maybe shit is ALL he can see.
Posted by: Sean M. | November 18, 2003 03:11 PM
Sean M. I stand corrected.
Posted by: Ryan | November 18, 2003 03:45 PM
Just a couple of things..
The preventative measures don't seem to be helping with AIDS all that much. Which makes another point to. Facts only help if people believe them. It's not stopping AIDS to make condoms if people don't use them and belive raping virgins will cure it.
There are preventative measures for our president too incidentally. We have elections for one thing, and a congress that controls the money. None of what we're doing in Iraq or Afghanistan could continue if Congress didn't aprove the money for it, and they can all be replaced too. Bush isn't a king, and the world is not at his mercy no matter what people with an agenda would like to make others believe. But again, don't let the facts get in the way of you making a point.
AIDS is preventable, but Bush isn't.. That's just stupid and I don't throw that word around much just because someone disagrees with me, but here it fits.
Posted by: Rob | November 18, 2003 04:42 PM
I think someone needs to change their bongwater.
Posted by: alfredo stroessner | November 18, 2003 05:18 PM
Rich, my point is only that Bush has only angered people who were already angry. Anyone attempting a strike, nuclear or otherwise, would be doing the same without Bush (hence the references to WTC, Khobar, and Cole, all pre-Bush).
Posted by: Ken Summers | November 18, 2003 05:26 PM
"Religious nut"? Well, that's something I never thought I'd hear in my life: people calling a Methodist a "religious nut."
Posted by: Andrea Harris | November 18, 2003 06:27 PM
I'm reminded of one of those scenes from action movies. Our hero runs through a bazaar fleeing the bad guys. Merchants, beggars, and street kids obstruct the pursuit, helping our hero escape. It used to be that the United States prided itself on having the goodwill of most of the world. Goodwill built up by countless acts of courtesy, respect, support, charity, and kindness. Trusted by our neighbors because we used our power like Robin Hood and Abraham Lincoln, to serve and protect the underdog, those who can't defend themselves. (Yes?)
Goodwill isn't just good, it's necessary. Goodwill lowers operational costs, fosters security, multiplies economic success, and creates new diplomatic options. Goodwill toward us denies terrorists financial and human resources, reduces their effectiveness, and narrows their options. It's an asset worth billions and entire armies. (Yes?)
For all the good he's accomplished, Bush continues to burn through all of America's goodwill. Our soldiers and diplomats and businessmen now find themselves in the role of our action hero's pursuers, blocked at every turn by those whose hearts and minds have been won by the pursued. So instead of friends helping us run down terrorists, bring down tyrants, open markets, and spread our ideals, people and governments don't even want us in the neighborhood. (Yes?)
For all the respect we earn by showing military prowess, we still must win hearts and minds. The current administration seems inept at this. So, can Bush's team learn the requisite behaviors and skills? Or should we recruit a management team that has that knowledge, skill, and ability?
Posted by: Phil Wolff | November 18, 2003 08:42 PM
My, my. And here I thought using the word "stupid" instead of some of my choicer epithets was a kindness. As for not comparing Bush to Hitler, I stopped when I did because although I think Bush has ample opportunity to beat Hitler's track record, I absolve him of deliberate genocidal malice. I do stick to "stupid", though. Would any of you prefer "mentally challenged," "carrying an intelligence deficit," or some other more PC term?
In a way, it's a lefthanded compliment to Americans. You have excellent technology for the purposes of destruction, as more than one war has proven. And you've survived having other fools as president, so I guess that could be considered a tribute to your political system. I would simply feel more comfortable if I felt able to trust Bush to make an intelligent decision on his own.
Posted by: Laura | November 18, 2003 11:10 PM
"As for not comparing Bush to Hitler, I stopped when I did because although I think Bush has ample opportunity to beat Hitler's track record, I absolve him of deliberate genocidal malice."
Typical self contradicting statement. It's obvious from your attitude that you think Bush can be worse than Hitler. This indicates quite directly that "deliberate genocidal malice" is a quality you believe Bush has, simply for the fact that one would have to have that ability in order to "beat" Hitlers record.
I am sick of all you asshats comparing Bush, and conservatives as a group, to Hitler.
Go to Germany, visit Auschwitz. Make sure you walk through the gas chambers. Visit the cramped "living" areas. See the pictures that they wont show the kids here. The piles of bodies.
Go here: http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/albums/palbum/p00/a0048p2.html
and tell me this: Where are the piles of bodies like these that were created by Bush? Iraq? ah yes.. I forgot, it was Bush that killed the hundreds of children and buried them in mass graves.
Maybe conservatives should start acting like the Nazi's you claim we are. We could start by taking asshats like you and your families and burn them to death in public. Then carry out experiments on your people without anesthesia. Hell, the Germans did it, so lets do the same, lets see how long you can survive torture, just so we can be sure.
We can gas entire groups of people from the left, and leave thier bodies to rot in piles in the street. We can execute your kind when we "judge" them to be stupid or useless...
Or perhaps you idiots can wake up and face the reality that we are NOTHING like the Nazi's you claim we are.
Posted by: JonB | November 18, 2003 11:43 PM
Harry has just one such arsehat.
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge | November 19, 2003 11:51 AM
Phill Wolff, you make some points about goodwill being a positive thing even in the face of the fact that we can get by without it. Certainly it helps make things easier when others are pleased with us and support what we do. I disagree that we've burned through that goodwill though. I think those acts of courtesy, respect, support, charity, and kindness you speak of have just come to be taken for granted. We still do all of those things. We still offer aid and support to countless nations all over the world to try and make their lives better. I'm not talking about political changes here. I'm talking about food and medicine that we give. I'm talking about disaster relief to countries in need. We offer those things in the Billions of dollars and I believe we should. We help because we can and at heart we are as a nation kind and generous. Our quality of life and our wealth as a whole I believe morally requires us to help when we can. At one time that was unheard of, though, and countries saw us as the benefactor we were. They looked at their children that would have starved without the food we gave them or their sick that would have died with out the medicine we gave them and they were grateful. It garnered us goodwill. Now, though, we have reached a generation where the world has never had to survive on it's own and all of the things we do are taken for granted. The people we provide so much support to have decided we owe it to them. They deserve to be supported by the United States, so the same acts of kindness and generosity don't garner us any good will. We didn't burn through our goodwill. It just expired.
I'm sorry this comment was so long, Michele. I probably should have taken this to my blog.
Posted by: Rob | November 19, 2003 05:08 PM
Here's what I think is going on. 9/11 was bad, really bad. International cognitive dissonance set in:
"Something that bad could only happen to a nation that was truly rotten. America is too rich and too fat and imperialist and simplistic and bullies and warmongering and greedy and religious and. . . . That's why Muslim fanatics don't like them. They're not very likable.
"Now, [FILL IN COUNTRY] is peaceful and generous and sophisticated and agnostic, and we don't have much of an obesity problem. Therefore, we don't have anything to fear from the likes of al Qaeda. I can rest easy."
Posted by: denise | November 19, 2003 06:13 PM
Phil, I will let an intelligent Brit answer you:
Most of the people demonstrating against you will be the latte-rati - people whose experience of oppression is having to wait four hours for the cable guy to come round.
Aaron Barschak
Posted by: alfredo stroessner | November 19, 2003 07:48 PM