When you gotta go..

Does that mean he's human after all......????

The BBC considers this newsworthy?

A change from taking the piss.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
A change from taking the piss.

Oh it's definitely punworthy. But I am surprised that the BBC has chosen to carry the report. Do we have a right to know that Bush goes to the toilet during a meeting! Did he blow his nose as well? Oh god did the great man sneeze!

Does the British taxpayer fund the BBC?

I think this is just a case of the dim puppet requesting permission from his puppeteers to do something unexpected.

When you have the lowest IQ in the room it must be naturally confusing when something unrehearsed comes up. This is just a glimpse of the real US governement in action.

I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for the poor sod. Pinnochio he isn't. The wooden kid had more brains, was a half-decent actor and was better at reading his lines.

Luckily it was just his nose that grew when he told lies. With "Burning" its just his wallet. Almost despite the wooden performance.

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for the poor sod. Pinnochio he isn't. The wooden kid had more brains, was a half-decent actor and was better at reading his lines.

I couldn't understand what "wooden" had to do with Augusto Pinochet, until I re-read it!

cheers, Martin

No Martin. That was another tyrant.

The story only gained publicity because of a telephoto photo of the note - in
this article the restrooms at the UN have featured in the past and have been used as a strategic negotiating ploy.

With a person like Bush who appears to have a large number Naim owners out to get him he had to have the secret service "sanitise" the restrooms before he visited them.

Deane F
The BBC is paid for by an involuntary levy, known as the TV Licence fee, raised against anyone who has a TV set. It is assumed that every household has one. Afaik, no money is allocated to the BBC from central taxation so it is a moot point whether the British taxpayer pays for the BBC.
End of pedantic rant!

Pathetic.
So far out of context it is just pathetic.
Perhaps, just bear with me for a moment, he was trying to keep from insulting the person who had the floor and was wanting to take a break because his bladder was about to burst.
Ever been in one of those meetings?
I just excuse myself and get rid of the excess coffee or whatever.
But I don't have the eyes of the world on me with the possibility of further straining relations with other world powers.
Pathetic.
David

There are none so blind as those who won't see.

Care to elaborate, Nime?
(Using my seeing eye dog to type this...)
I'm no Bush supporter, it just seems beyond petty to blast the man for having to pee (or whatever, maybe he had GI distress, who knows?).
There are plenty of other fundamental flaws worth discussing.
David

David

My sincere apologies if my clumsy cliché was hurtful. I had no idea you had sight problems. The intricacies of political correctness often defeat my fumbling attempts to express an opinion.

But back to Bush: I find the man repulsive in almost every department that matters to me. His volunteering to rule the world by force does the world abolutely no favours.

Seeking advice on leaving a meeting to use the lavatory is yet another reason to loathe the man for his blatent incompetence and blatent worldly weakness.

I am biased because his actions impact on my world too. Yet I did not have a say in his election to the post of "Most Powerful Man on Earth". An oxymoron if ever there was one!

Regards
Nime

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
Seeking advice on leaving a meeting to use the lavatory is yet another reason to loathe the man for his blatent incompetence and blatent worldly weakness.

???



Of course, it's not possible that the BBC was taken in by a hoax is it?

BBC Retraction: "Bush Did Not Need To Urinate After All." (tee hee)

Regards
Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Kelly:
Deane F
The BBC is paid for by an involuntary levy, known as the TV Licence fee, raised against anyone who has a TV set. It is assumed that every household has one. Afaik, no money is allocated to the BBC from central taxation so it is a moot point whether the British taxpayer pays for the BBC.
End of pedantic rant!

So the BBC is an independant organisation and has no government control?

If the BBC were taken in by the Bush potty request then so was the London Times - which elsewhere has been reporting on


"Blair 'shocked' over BBC Katrina coverage
By Joshua Chaffin and Aline van Duyn in New York
Published: September 17 2005 00:38 | Last updated: September 17 2005 00:38

Tony Blair was shocked by the BBC's coverage of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans, describing it as "full of hatred of America", Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, revealed on Friday night.

Mr Murdoch, a long-time critic of the BBC who controls rival Sky News, said the prime minister had recounted his feelings in a private conversation earlier this week in New York."

So old Murdoch cannot have it both ways - or perhaps we will be seeing heads roll at the Times as the reporters are told to toe the Murdoch Party line.

Hmm? I thought Sky News coverage of Katrina much more critical than the BBC.

The reports I have seen of US originated stories re the Katrina aftermath have been very critical just by what they have reported, let alone by the added comment.

Nime-
I understand your feelings of frustration and you are within your rights, obviously.
Just seems to me that there is ample room to criticize the man and his policies in areas other than his bathroom habits.
Like it or not, the man is the leader of the "free world" at least for now. Britain had its turn, as did many other empires throughout history. The thought of who is next is far more frightening to me than Bush and his cronies.
David

Well it does bring a whole new meaning to "fiddling while Rome burns".

I just watched Scorsese's "Gangs of New York".
Not much has changed in the last 150 years.

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:
Like it or not, the man is the leader of the "free world" at least for now. Britain had its turn, as did many other empires throughout history. The thought of who is next is far more frightening to me than Bush and his cronies.

I think that you're right, David. It's not easy being the world's greatest power and it never has been. For all their deceipt and frequent misuse of power, the Americans probably do a better job than we did in our empire days. Like you I suspect that when the Chinese take the batton even Nime may find himself looking back with nostalgia to the good old days of the evil Bush-Hitler. I'm told that Chairman Mao only needed to relieve himself three times per year and, even then, only over his own citizens.

On a related subject, if Schroeder keeps his job as Chancellor, even with a lower % vote than Merke, I wonder if he'll come in for anything like the same abuse as Dubya did after his elections.

Regards
Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
Seeking advice on leaving a meeting to use the lavatory is yet another reason to loathe the man for his blatent incompetence and blatent worldly weakness.

???



Of course, it's not possible that the BBC was taken in by a hoax is it?

BBC Retraction: "Bush Did Not Need To Urinate After All." (tee hee)

Regards
Steve M

LOL. Great stuff, back to referencing blogs. And not a very clever one at that.
I quote:
“the BBC has reported that the president once needed to pee.”
Nobody reported that the President needed to pee. Reuters reported the scribbled request to pee, the picture came from a Reuters photographer and was picked up by a vast swathe of the news media, including the BBC and as Derek rightly pointed out, Murdoch’s Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1782805,00.html. Therefore one has to ask where, if anywhere, lies the intellectual worth in you suggesting that this might be a hoax on the BBC and this dismal blog referring solely to an alleged BBC obsession with Bush, the BBC looking silly or a BBC retraction? I think it’s clear who has the obsession.

The next line was a bloody gem:
“In another blow for the media credibility, "Susan" a reader of "bloggs", has thrown a googly to demonstrate that his handwriting's not like that.”
Susan….a reader of blogs?!!! Man, I’ve just nearly fallen off my chair laughing. And the joke is that the writing clearly matches. Cheers Suzy. Steve, I’ve seen a side by side comparison that clearly shows the writing is Bush’s but as I can verify neither the sample nor the analyst’s credentials, I’m not daft enough to reference it to support a position.

Sadly, we’re long past the stage where this story needs to be true to demonstrate that this administration has been anything but a tragicomedy with Bush the clueless rube, presiding over one of the darkest and divisive epochs in recent US history. So, I couldn’t care less if Bush did ask Condi permission to go pee but if you’re determined to continue this long-running saga about the inherent deviousness of the BBC, at least apply yourself, offer some substantial evidence and spare us the blogs and Susan’s wisdom.

Lordy, I’ve read a bit more and again, and that blog, particularly the comments, sullies the good name of kack.

Wow. I had no idea that the President's peeing or non-peeing was an issue serious enough to bring you out of your hole once more.

One wonders why you're so keen to go rummaging about in every cack-sullying blog that anyone references (is it anyone or just me?). Best you stick to the BBC in future.

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
Wow. I had no idea that the President's peeing or non-peeing was an issue serious enough to bring you out of your hole once more.

LOL. Still quoting from blogs and still not reading posts.

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
I couldn’t care less if Bush did ask Condi permission to go pee but if you’re determined to continue this long-running saga about the inherent deviousness of the BBC, at least apply yourself, offer some substantial evidence and spare us the blogs and Susan’s wisdom.

I had a look through this blog because it would be wrong to pass comment on this or any other publication without actually reading it. I'm puzzled that you find this principle odd. I read it and found it to be worthless twaddle and am amazed that anyone would think it worthy of referencing.

Back to the earlier point; Reuters broke the story and Murdoch's press and others reported it so why would you think that it be some elaborate hoax simply on the BBC?

Perhaps he's biased?