Democrats Are Risking Political Damnation

Holocaust in that definition is a synonym to genocide -- there are no parameters. It's a mass slaughter of people. Holocaust has come to mean towards a specific group of people which, in its lighter form, is ethnic cleansing. I wouldn't use the word too loosely, though. It also is qualified that those slaughtered are without defense. I won't condone that in so-called wars which often have murky situations and conditions that innocence lose their lives. It irks me every time the military passes off "friendly fire" is such a cavalier manner, for instance. It too often sound like, "Aren't we relieved, it wasn't our enemy who did the killing, it was us." Yikes!

Sozobe writes:


I don't disagree with your take on it Sozobe. If you follow me around on the threads I participate in, you'll see that I find quite a bit to criticize Bush for. But when some can find absolutely nothing that the man does right and launch insults at him and the messenger when somebody does point out something he got right, I can only define that kind of venom as hate. On some threads, the venom seems to be the pattern.

You see, your post signals that you may believe Bush has harmed the economy. I believe his policies have been mostly beneficial for the economy. If you in fact do believe he harmed the economy, here we have a philosophical and/or factual and/or perceptive difference of opinon. That could form the basis for a spirited debate.

But when somebody diplomatically (sarcasm here) points out that Bush is nothing but a (--insert the insult of your choice here--) and overtly or covertly point out that I am a (--insert the insult of your choice here--) because I defend him on whatever issue, if that isn't irrational prejudice and/or hate, it certainly looks like it.

Of course we could probably have a lively discussion on the definition of 'hate' for that matter or whether my opinion does or does not have any merit on this or any other issue.

I've been jumped on by some stating my opinion in various ways that debate by insult is not productive or useful. This of course triggers the perception that I am being insulting towards those who have been insulting. Which sometimes is not an incorrect perception.

And do I sometimes exaggerate in expressing my frustration? Oh yeah.
And do I believe there are those so blinded by hate they are incapable of being objective on some issues? Yeah, I believe that too though many, if not most, A2K members are pretty savvy and competent in making an argument for their case.

Can you point out where you've criticized Bush here? I haven't seen a lot of it.

Of course I agree with what you are saying about people being insulting. But you seem to be putting people who have actual valid criticisms in the same category.

As for Bush and the economy, yes, I base that on what facts I can get my hands on rather than because of my dislike for the man. And I definitely dislike him, but the chicken and egg of it is that I dislike him BECAUSE he has done so many things that I think are misguided, shall we say. I don't decide what he does is misguided because I don't like him, I dislike him because he does all of these misguided things. I dislike that he does them, I dislike that he refuses to accept responsibility for them when they go wrong, and I dislike his apparent cynicism regarding the American public.

For factual aspects of how Bush has made... misguided... decisions regarding the economy, I recommend Paul Krugman. Let me know if you'd like some suggestions.

Paul Krugman is too bitter a dish for our Bush devotees. They believe in attacking the messenger and secondarily the message.

I probably haven't criticized Bush in this particular thread. I didn't go back and re-read all of it.

Just in general. That was something specific you said, that "If you follow me around on the threads I participate in, you'll see that I find quite a bit to criticize Bush for." I don't doubt it, but I haven't happened across it much.

Reasons
Why many people hate GW Bush.

The short list.


Bush and his oligarchic companions sabotaged American democracy so they could pillage taxpayer resources.

Bush is bad for business and the economy. He is only interested in enriching himself and his friends.

Bush is bad for the future. He is compromising the prosperity of tomorrow's America by shortchanging today's children.

Bush is bad for the environment.

The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.

Bush has tried to undermine the United Nations, a democratic institution created in large measure by Presidents Eisenhower and Truman. Without even understanding what the UN does, Bush has called it "irrelevant" when it fails to fall in line with his dictates.

Bush is inarticulate and projects a stereotype abroad of Americans being ignorant and myopic.

Bush torpedoes global agreements on everything from racism and global warming to biological weapons and land mines, and then expects the world to line up behind him.

Bush took positive patriotism and global support in the wake of 9/11 and forced it behind his own narrow self-interest in Iraq. He hijacked 9/11 for his own benefit.

Bush stands against everything America stands for.


Bush is arrogant and his smirk causes many to have the desire to slap it off of his face.

Edit (Moderator): Link Removed.

Sozobe writes:


I've been quite critical about GWB's non-amnesty amnesty program for illegals in this country and think the Medicare prescription drug bill was more politics than compassion as few seniors wanted it. (I also think it will be scaled back and downsized before it actually goes into effect.) I was thrilled when GWB signaled he wanted to reactivate the manned space programs to the moon and Mars and was disappointed in him when he caved in to political pressure and dropped that initiative. He is a godawful extemporaneous speaker and that frustrates me no end when he is unable to forcefully communicate his convictions or actions. All this I have indicated on other threads except possibly the space program thing--can't remember a discussion about that on A2K.

This thread was about criticism of GWB 'invoking the name of God' in his press conference and has included ridiculous accusations. I have vigorously defended him on these points. Every president in my lifetime has been a professed Christian and every one of them has worked a reference to God and/or Christ and/or Christian faith into a speech now and then. To villainize Bush because he does it and give all the others a pass just doesn't wash.

What exactly is Bush's convictions? Please tell us, because he keeps change'n em.

Thanks, Foxfyre, I enjoy seeing nuanced opinions.

My point is pretty simple... how would you react if you got a response to your above post that said something like this?:

"Just because you can't understand the Medicare bill doesn't mean that you have to read all of these bad intentions into it. The Anybody But Bush crowd is just searching for anything that they can possibly pin on Bush. He was trying to help seniors! Clinton tried to do the same thing. But Bush is villainized no matter what he does, it's totally irrational."

It seems to me that democrats aren't risking political damnation as long as we have folks like Bob Woodward around to sort things out, and participating folks who are quite willing to give him all the ammunition he needs.

The interview was amazing. From Cheney's meetings with Prince Badar, to Bush's comments about how he "serves a greater father," to Bush'c comments on how history will view this: "Who care's, we'll all be dead." the man is insane, and his supporters are participating in the destruction of the nation.
I can see the reaction now:
"I don't believe any of it."

Not to mention the impeachable offense of diverting funds approved for Afghanistan to Iraq. Is it impeachable? Wonder how Congress will react to the admin subverting their will?

LW, took a day off for the Florida gathering and when I looked back at my post it was a little bit over the top. You called me on it in a very gentle and gracious way. Thanks. Sometimes I forget that in a forum, as in a democracy, self-censorship is a sterling quality.

I have had occassion to bandaid my tongue. It is, after all, a question of posting in anger. Anger is nearly always counter-productive to one's goal. I've tried to count to ten before I hit the Reply button and sometimes still had to go back to the Edit button.

In all honesty, tweren't anger but pomposity...cheers

You're killing me...this from a supporter of the party whose entire strategy is to present Kerry as a waffler who is always changing his mind? Get real.

There are some anectdotal reporting in today's San Jose Mercury News of the new drug bill in the San Francisco bay area. One guy threw away his new drug benefit card, because he claims it's worthless. He claims it's cheaper to buy his drugs from Canada. The state of California provides a more generous drug benefit that covers 10 to 40 percent vs the fed's 10 to 25 percent. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about the drug benefit bill signed by congress and Bush.

Well criminy, you never thought of it as a benefit, did you? It was transparent all along.

Well, despite your trenchant use of emoticons, I do have a comeback. A mature, intelligent person will occasionally change his mind. This is quite a different matter from having no real opinions, deciding policy by polls, and changing one's mind every time the wind changes direction.