In response to requests from Republicans Abroad In Disguise (RABID), the GOP national committee has decided to adopt a new slogan derived from an old idea. “Boo-Fucking-Hoo” and “Boo-Fucking-Hooism”. It is hoped that this slogan will unify Republicans everywhere as well as simplify the Republican message in the run-up to the election. Apparently, republicans abroad have been increasingly using the term “Boo-Fucking-Hoo” in response to the merest whiff of an anti-Bush sentiment or the slightest hint that an aspect of US policy might not be exactly perfect. In addition, a lot of this interaction has been taking place on the internet especially in Forums. Non-Americans, though perplexed at first have come to expect this stock answer when questioning anything the Bushists do or believe in, as it greatly clarifies the Republican message as well as dramatically decreases the number of meaningless words used to defend the indefensible. Republican national committee members agree that “Boo-Fucking-Hoo” will be eagerly snapped up by a catchphrase- hungry population which wishes to chant quite meaninglessly. “We believe that “Boo-Fucking-Hoo” and “Boo-Fucking-Hooism” embodies wholeheartedly the values this president holds most dear” one unnamed White House official was recorded as saying. However, it is feared that some on the RABID right will not take kindly to this clarification of all GOP policy and this standarization of response. Some RABID adherents abroad will continue to use many many words to respond to criticism when “Boo-Fucking-Hoo” would suffice.
Broon Ale:
Well Boo Fucking Hoo. You had to know that was coming.
fred
That’s one in the bucket for supper…
Broon Ale:
And we all know what rhymes with bucket don’t we?
Love Fred Really you have been great today so slow so easy to dis.
[quote=“fred smith”]
Love Fred Really you have been great today so easy to dis.[/quote]
And what the f**k do you bloody mean by that eh!!! Come on…!!!
usually people use “boo-fucking-hoo” when they hear incessant or inane whining. Did someone use this phrase in a conversation you had today, BroonAle? 
RABID’s b-f-w’s have been neatly, if only partially, catalogued in the US:
[quote=“On June 22, 2004, Texan writer - and perpetual throrn in Bush’s side - Molly Ivins”]
…
– You may recall that when even the administration finally admitted Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (with that adorable video of President Bush on his hands and knees searching under sofas in the Oval Office for the missing WMD – oh, it was so amusing. Eight hundred American dead.), we were treated to the following rationales:
- Didn’t make any difference because Saddam Hussein was a really, really bad guy anyway.
He was, of course, and it was always the only decent rationale for getting rid of him. It was the argument made by Tony Blair but specifically rejected by the Bush administration. Paul Wolfowitz explained in Vanity Fair that human rights violations were not a sufficient consideration for invasion.
-
It was all Saddam’s fault that we thought he had WMD. The wily coot fooled us by repeatedly denying that he had any, a fiendishly clever ploy.
-
He probably shipped them all to Syria just before we got there.
-
Get over it. We’ve heard enough from you people.
– Torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere?
-
No worse than fraternity hazing.
-
Just some low-level, white-trash morons.
-
We haven’t tortured nearly as many people as Saddam Hussein.
-
Al Qaeda never signed no stinkin’ Geneva Conventions, so we have a right to torture them.
-
Shut up, they explained.
– Torture was explicitly authorized at the highest levels of government.
1-5) See above, plus:
-
Did not.
-
So what?
-
“I’m going to say it one more time. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to the law. That ought to comfort you. We’re a nation of laws. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at those laws, and that might comfort you.”
Problem is the administration looked at the laws and decided to ignore them.
– Ahmad Chalabi is not just a liar, con man, thief and faker of intelligence, but also apparently a spy for Iran.
-
Chalabi? Ahmad who? Never heard of him.
-
We cut off all ties with Chalabi some time ago. (Last week.)
– The 9-11 Commission reports there is no evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and in fact Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were all much bigger players with Al Qaeda.
-
The 9-11 Commission didn’t say that.
-
The media are overplaying the story and are also lazy and outrageous. (Never mind that it’s the media’s fault as much as the administration’s that 69 percent of the American people were under the misimpression that Saddam Hussein was directly tied to 9-11.)
-
We never claimed he was behind 9-11. No, we never did – we may have implied it, we may have hinted, we may have suggested, insinuated, intimated, connoted, alluded to and said it between the lines, but we never said it, and you can’t prove we did and we have no idea how the great majority of Americans ever got that silly idea in the first place. So stop reporting that it’s not true.
-
We are tired of hearing from you people, this has been going on for almost 24 hours now and only Dead Reagan gets a week’s worth of our undivided attention. Back to Kobe Bryant and Laci Peterson.
All in all, I’d say these folks have their act down now. … [/quote]
:bravo:
Well Boo Fucking Hoo. ER or whatever…
fred
Durins Bane: Um…possibly but I would never reveal who.
[quote=“Alleycat”]Well Boo Fucking Hoo. ER or whatever…
fred[/quote]
Not sure whether Alleycat’s new Fred Smith-like identity is befitting a rational restauranteur.
[quote=“BroonAle”][quote=“Alleycat”]Well Boo Fucking Hoo. ER or whatever…
fred[/quote]
Not sure whether Alleycat’s new Fred Smith-like identity is befitting a rational restauranteur.[/quote]
Seems my machine contracted a virus last night. Sorry about that Broonale. I’ll run the antivirus.
The Bush administration just standardized another one, this in response to critical questioning from Irish television reporter Carole Coleman.
Here’s the response:
[quote=“Miriam Lord, of the Irish Independent,”]
Angry White House pulls RTE interview
THE White House has lodged a complaint with the Irish Embassy in Washington over RTE journalist Carole Coleman’s interview with US President George Bush.
And it is believed the President’s staff have now withdrawn from an exclusive interview which was to have been given to RTE this morning by First Lady Laura Bush.
It is understood that both RTE and the Department of Foreign Affairs were aware of the exclusive arrangement, scheduled for 11am today. However, when RTE put Ms Coleman’s name forward as interviewer, they were told Mrs Bush would no longer be available.
The Irish Independent learned last night that the White House told Ms Coleman that she interrupted the president unnecessarily and was disrespectful.
She also received a call from the White House in which she was admonished for her tone.
And it emerged last night that presidential staff suggested to Ms Coleman as she went into the interview that she ask him a question on the outfit that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern wore to the G8 summit.
unison.ie/irish_independent/ … e_id=11063[/quote]
As usual, Bush used the interview with Ms. Coleman, on Irish TV (link above; Bush speaks at about the 15:00 mark), to speak only to Americans (he is, in fact, a kind of American isolationist turned inside-out: a unilateralist at heart, a kind of knee-jerk anti-multilaterist; I don’t think Bush cares now, nor has ever cared, about any international opinion). Because he was speaking only to Americans (although through Irish tv), he felt free to hector Ms. Coleman in a most condescending way during her interview.
(Actually, to be fair, it’s obvious from the interview that Bush’s mind is simply slower than Ms. Coleman’s. His hectoring is mere stalling, a way to buy time until he can figure out how to fit her question to his “talking point,” or until the next talking point presents itself in the queue.)
The standardized response must be “never will Bush’s sloshy mental gears be seen by the public!”
I’m sure Bush has turned European opinion around with this latest performance. NATO cooperation in Iraq must be imminent now.
Right?
[quote=“flike”]The Bush administration just standardized another one, this in response to critical questioning from Irish television reporter Carole Coleman.
Here’s the response:
[quote=“Miriam Lord, of the Irish Independent,”]
Angry White House pulls RTE interview
THE White House has lodged a complaint with the Irish Embassy in Washington over RTE journalist Carole Coleman’s interview with US President George Bush.
And it is believed the President’s staff have now withdrawn from an exclusive interview which was to have been given to RTE this morning by First Lady Laura Bush.
It is understood that both RTE and the Department of Foreign Affairs were aware of the exclusive arrangement, scheduled for 11am today. However, when RTE put Ms Coleman’s name forward as interviewer, they were told Mrs Bush would no longer be available.
The Irish Independent learned last night that the White House told Ms Coleman that she interrupted the president unnecessarily and was disrespectful.
She also received a call from the White House in which she was admonished for her tone.
And it emerged last night that presidential staff suggested to Ms Coleman as she went into the interview that she ask him a question on the outfit that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern wore to the G8 summit.
unison.ie/irish_independent/ … e_id=11063[/quote]
As usual, Bush used the interview with Ms. Coleman, on Irish TV (link above; Bush speaks at about the 15:00 mark), to speak only to Americans (he is, in fact, a kind of American isolationist turned inside-out: a unilateralist at heart, a kind of knee-jerk anti-multilaterist; I don’t think Bush cares now, nor has ever cared, about any international opinion). Because he was speaking only to Americans (although through Irish tv), he felt free to hector Ms. Coleman in a most condescending way during her interview.
(Actually, to be fair, it’s obvious from the interview that Bush’s mind is simply slower than Ms. Coleman’s. His hectoring is mere stalling, a way to buy time until he can figure out how to fit her question to his “talking point,” or until the next talking point presents itself in the queue.)
The standardized response must be “never will Bush’s sloshy mental gears be seen by the public!”
I’m sure Bush has turned European opinion around with this latest performance. NATO cooperation in Iraq must be imminent now.
Right?[/quote]
So, Boo-Fucking_Hooism is alive and well.
Well considering that NATO has made such a huge commitment to an area where everyone agreed (Afghanistan) I am sure that we can look forward to receiving US$153.72 from Europe and maybe getting 1,500 bureaucrats assigned to “study” Iraq and its “needs.” They will be paid through an Oil for Bureaucrats program to be administered by the UN where 750 people will “manage” them and their efforts. Perhaps we will also get a few military “experts” to fly into “liaise” with their local counterparts as well? Oh dear. What a great help that will be.
The GOP should borrow Pat Paulsen’s old campaing slogan–Picky, Picky, Picky. Or else they should borrow one from Fred Smith, “If you think that was bad, look at this. Now don’t you feel foolish? Where was the outrage on that one?”