POLITICS: Whoopi Goldberg Does Her Best X-Rated Bush-Bash, page 1

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 07:19 AM

link

Last night during a Democratic fund raiser in New York City, it continued to be fashionable to bring political debate to new lows thanks to the atmosphere fostered by the likes of Mr. Moore. Goldberg saw fit to make lewd references to Bush during an official Democratic party fund raiser.

www.iol.co.za
Goldberg, a devout Democrat, did not spare Bush in her monologue: "Anybody who could wave to (blind singer) Stevie Wonder isn't fully there," she said to howls from the audience.

But she also produced a few embarrassed grimaces with an unsubtle anatomical double-entendre enjoining voters to "keep Bush where it belongs and not in the White House."

The performance, which overshadowed appearances by stars ranging from hip-hop idol Wyclef Jean to actor Paul Newman, highlighted the awkward mix of strait-laced politicians and the volatile artists they routinely court.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Are we entering an era where politicians make more use of outside sources than ever before to further their cause? Is Kerry taking advantage of the rising anti-Bush feeling brought on by the Moore movie, and fueled by brainless entertainers looking for the spotlight?

What ever happened to real issues?

Or, maybe we never really had those.

Related News Links:
www.wjla.com
www.nypost.com
people.aol.com

[edit on 9-7-2004 by John bull 1]

J0HNSmith

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 08:55 AM

link

Well, the fact that Bush is constantly doing moronic things IS a real issue. It says something about who he is and how much forethought he puts into his actions. Just waving at a blind man is the tip of the ice burg of stupidity that is our fearless leader.

If you knew anything about Goldberg the last thing you would call her is a brainless entertainer, in fact I think that quote applies accurately to Bush and his armada of fumbled metaphors mixed with his texas frat boy persona. We would be far better off if he lead enron and that circus if lies and public deceit than we are having him bring that type of trash to the white house. We have enough dirty polititons as is, the least we can do is vote one in who has enough brain cells to rub together to know blind people can't see.

worldwatcher

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:06 AM

link

since our younger generation cannot seem to relate with our politicians, then why not allow them to relate to their favorite celebrities and become familiar with what they stand for. I think it should a required duty of celebrities and people in the public eye other than politicians to encourage the younger generation to vote and get involved in social issues.

I also don't see anything wrong with a celebrity choosing a side or cause. If you relate to that celebrity in other matters then more than likely you will also relate to that celebrity's political stance too.

and if you never related to a celebrity or was never a fan, then again more than likely you won't be siding with issues that they stand for.

regardless of the message be it politics or anything else, celebrities are much easier to relate to than our politicians for the younger generation.

and as for Whoopi, I applaud her for always having balls enough to speak her mind.

Teknik

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:28 AM

link

[edit on 2004-7-10 by Teknik]

worldwatcher

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:32 AM

link

lol...of course I wouldn't chose a celebrity as a role model for my children, but i can't guarantee that when my kid turns 18 he will still listen to everything i say, i'm sure he will be choosing his own role models at that time

but you have to admit, looking at the current state of American society, that the younger people are using celebrities as their role models and not politicians...sad but true

J0HNSmith

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 10:22 AM

link

Originally posted by Teknik\Which would you rather have as role models for your children:

� Celebrities� or � Politicians?

[I'll be right back, gotta go find a place to vomit]

...X...

Well, they are both corrupted law breaking groups who love their public soap box and often have alternative reasons for their stances on their issues. But celebrities I think have a broader range of stances that they are able to take because they are not as confined by political party views.

SpamBurger

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 11:38 AM

link

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
Well, the fact that Bush is constantly doing moronic things IS a real issue. It says something about who he is and how much forethought he puts into his actions. Just waving at a blind man is the tip of the ice burg of stupidity that is our fearless leader.

First, I don't know when, where or why Bush waved to Stevie Wonder. Sure, it's funny, but does it indicate that he is stupid? Of course not. I'm sure it was probably just a reflex. Of all the people you come in contact with every day, how many are blind? I'm sure the default thing to do would be what you do most of the time. I doubt it's like he was standing somewhere waving to him to get his attention or waving to him to show him where to park.

I'm sure if you lived under constant media coverage we'd see some incredibly stupid moments as well. We all do things that are stupid at one point or another. It's life. For example, just because someone isn't paying attention and walks into a glass door, steps off of a curb, stumbles and trips doesn't make them dumb. It makes them human. It also says they are being themselves and aren't obsessed with what everyone else thinks. I'd be much more concerned about someone who has such a facade that people who see them have no idea what sort of person they are for real.

Nerdling

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 11:40 AM

link

Ahhh, i love Whoopi.

Now if only Eddie Murphy would do a set on him....

James the Lesser

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 11:46 AM

link

All actors and politicians are law breaking? How many laws has Weird Al Yankovic or his band members broken? How many laws has someone like Penn Jilette broken? How many laws has Brad Pitt broken? You can't generalize all people. Now for politicians, I think the fact they are in office proves something, what, I don't know.

flexipaul

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 12:20 PM

link

Originally posted by SpamBurger

First, I don't know when, where or why Bush waved to Stevie Wonder. Sure, it's funny, but does it indicate that he is stupid? Of course not. I'm sure it was probably just a reflex. Of all the people you come in contact with every day, how many are blind? I'm sure the default thing to do would be what you do most of the time. I doubt it's like he was standing somewhere waving to him to get his attention or waving to him to show him where to park.

Are you serious bush will go down as the most stupid man to ever be in the whitehouse
there was one occasion that he did not realise the feed to the uk was live and he was laughing and joking with his advisors now this would be fine but he was just about to give his first speech on the space shuttle disaster and to offer his condolences this is just one occasion (WAKE UP).

The world see's this man as moronic, stupid and the worst liar ever to step in front of a camera. Now i understand his paid advisors and his cronies in the whitehouse will defend this man. (thats what they are paid to do) what i do not understand is how a member of the public who obviously has intelligence cannot see through this charade you call a presidency.

also when most people stumble and trip they are drunk (remember the prezell).

Do not think that john kerry will be any better for the gool old US of A
he will be even worse at least with bush you know when he is lying and has no media skills, now with john kerry, will you know anything he is up too (i doubt it) he is even worse than bush and has far more intelligence

so the world is basically screwed have you even asked yourself the real reason why cia director tennant resigned do your homework and please do not defend this man.

curme

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link

Originally posted by DramaticPause
Is Kerry taking advantage of the rising anti-Bush feeling brought on by the Moore movie, and fueled by brainless entertainers looking for the spotlight?

I think Kerry is taking advantage of the rising anti-Bush feeling brought on by Bush, and fueled by his brainless cadre of liars and crooks.

nativeokie

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link

Okay so things got pretty intersting at this fund raiser. Well free speech and all allows it to do so.

Of course according to this article the Bush/Cheney camp wants the tapes of last night released to the public as a way to embarrass their competition.

What ever happened to running on issues, talking to voters about the issues and giving your assesment and plans? Now it is turning into total pot shots at each other. And the Bush campaign is the worse. They have run more negative ads then anyone before. I believe Bush does feel his policies are what is right for this country, I wish he would then stand on those principles and run ads, etc that focus on those areas instead of attacking. Of course he did the same thing in 2000 and when he ran for govenor of Texas...

www.drudgereport.com...

Oh and let's not forget the show "That's My Bush". Before 9/11 a whole TV show was based on his "lack of intelligence". I don't remember a show about another president ever running, especially during his term. Granted it went away after 9/11 since at that time we all rallied around him. I think it shows that people have felt this way about him for his entire presidency.

[edit on 7/9/2004 by nativeokie]

The Last Free Man

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link

Originally posted by Nerdling
Ahhh, i love Whoopi.

Now if only Eddie Murphy would do a set on him....

#

Screw Eddie Murphy, why did Bill Hicks have to die.

Please Bill rise again we really need you now....

SpamBurger

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link

Originally posted by flexipaul
there was one occasion that he did not realise the feed to the uk was live and he was laughing and joking with his advisors now this would be fine but he was just about to give his first speech on the space shuttle disaster and to offer his condolences this is just one occasion (WAKE UP).

also when most people stumble and trip they are drunk (remember the prezell).

I have never said I was defending anyone, however the degree to which people try to ridicule normal things is amazing. None of the things you mention indicates any level of stupidity. I'm sure you have never stumbled while sober. I'm sure you have never tripped while sober. I'm sure you have never said something you shouldn't have while sober. And if any of the above would have occured while he was not sober, you would probably be screaming that he has a drinking problem. So, while drinking is an acceptable excuse for 'most people', I am quite sure it would be irrelevant for the President.

Just because something horrible has happened (space shuttle disaster) doesn't mean that every moment of your day should be solemn and depressed. It means that you behave properly when you are supposed to and show respect to the situation. Being caught, unexpectedly , laughing is nothing at all to get worked up over. Had he got on camera and opened up his speech with 'Good evening ladies and germs', then I would say it was inappropriate. People go to a funeral to show respect and honor a person. I have seen people laugh and even tell jokes at a funeral. Should there be an official mourning period after anything happens where the President isn't allowed to laugh???

As for the lying, you will believe what you choose. None of use will know the truth about some things. I will also say that we don't need to know the truth about certain things. Some things cannot be announced on the evening news. If there has to be a cover story to keep sensitive things from getting out, so be it. This kind of thing will happen no matter who is in office, some for good reason and others not. The reason we elect officials is to have someone to run the country, not to have someone who has to come tell us every little thing and ask for our permission.

These are ridiculous arguments and examples and I can't believe I wasted my time and bandwidth to reply. However, there it is.

Johannmon

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link

The problem with the way this event went off last night is that it illustrates how Kerry is ebracing the destruction of our nation. His campain is breeding a hatred of our president. His campaign is using the most vile and base accusations and insinuations to defame the president our our nation. They are embracing sexual innuendo and approving of propaganda like f911 to support them. These things are a disease that will destroy this country. I do not think BUsh is the greatest pres ever nor do I think he is the worst but he has held his office with dignity and upheld a public image of the pres of the USA that can be respected. To defame the leader of our nation is to defame our nation itself. I believe there is lots of room for critisism without resorting to lies and deciet and rank insults. I do not hear this level of rankor or hatred for Kerry from the right. They bash him on issues and on records sure. That is politics, but they do not call him genitalia or call him the school yard names. Maybe they are confusing the sitting president with the previous one who invited these kind of references with his actions. THis rancor in the Democratic party will backfire on them, or at least I hope it does for if it wins the day. All that has made this country great, our dignity, our morality, our respect for one another and for the offices of our elected officials will be flushed down the sewer. Think of what the next presidential campaign will be if these tactics are allowed to win the day?

DramaticPause

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link

Originally posted by Johannmon
To defame the leader of our nation is to defame our nation itself.

Shall we say the same regarding the Republican frenzy over the Lewinski issue?

The story, and point, is demonstrative of what has happened in this country, a divisive election in 2000 results in an even more divisive campaign in 2004.

The "sides" of right and "left" are further apart than ever before, with precious few rational minds occupying what's left of the middle.

Both sides would say "you are either with us or against us," as an ideological ultimatum spewed from the politi-pulpit. If those are the choices in this game of American politics, perhaps it's time to end the game and think anew.

Johannmon

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link

Originally posted by DramaticPause

Shall we say the same regarding the Republican frenzy over the Lewinski issue?

The story, and point, is demonstrative of what has happened in this country, a divisive election in 2000 results in an even more divisive campaign in 2004.

The "sides" of right and "left" are further apart than ever before, with precious few rational minds occupying what's left of the middle.

The Lewinski issue and subsequent perjury was a national low not seen since Nixon. But in that case it was the President himself who debased his office with unbecoming conduct. It was exacerbated by partisan politics and was unfortunately never properly resolved.

There is little middle ground left because those on the democratic side and slidden so far from center. The right is in the same place it was back in the 80's. It is championing the same causes. The left however has slidden into a moral quagmire, going way left of anything any democrat would have dared to even mention on the national scene in the 80's; THings like degrading marriage to include same sex couples, Murdering babies that have been born all but for their heads by sucking out their brains, (partial berth abortion), Standing behind removal of any vestige of Christian heritage from our nation's legal and government systems even though the 10 commandments are inscribed clearly on the Supreme Court building in Washington DC itself. The left has gone loony and the right has stayed where it was 20 years ago or gone back to it either way. Hence there is a wide gap between the two that makes it difficult to stand on the fence. When faced with a choice between a harlot or a old hag what is there in the middle? Nothing! Personally I would rather stand on the principles of the 80 that lead to the prosperity of the 90 that to stand on the principles that lead to the fall of Rome. Read your history people. All the great empires of old fell into moral decay before their destruction. We cannot allow that to happen to our nation. Is Bush the answer? I do not know. All I know is that what Kerry has ebraced to become the Democratic parties candidate is not. I pray for a revival of morality in this nation.

starky

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link

all i have to do is look back to the very beginning, do you endanger an elementary class/school, nada. obviously, he cant make decisions and decisions are being made for all. choke on your pretzels, fall off your bike, but the worst was sitting in classroom like you "know nuthing" heil bush

gurnio

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link

Of course it probably means nothing to you bubbleheads that Bush never *did* wave at Stevie Wonder...

Another urban legend

Sheesh, and you say BUSH lies...

Majic

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link

The irony of "Bush-haters" is that of claiming that the guy who keeps outsmarting them is an idiot.