Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Greyfan wrote:

Clinton (and Kerry) has been accused here of being swayed by the will of the people --as though flexibility and pragmatism were bad things, and diplomacy a sign of weakness in the great Holy War, rather than the earmarks of true civilization, in which war is a last, rather than first, resort.

<applause>

I may not agree with some things in the rest of your post - especially the paragraph that starts with "It has been asked why ..." -- but this was very, very, nicely, wisely said.

0 Replies

I'm with Phoenix on this one.

I was irritated with members of my own party/political persuasion during the Clinton era when the criticisms were sometimes speculative, innuendo, and/or made up 'facts' and the man could absolutely do nothing that was right in their eyes.

And I am irritated with members of the loyal opposition now when criticisms of the current administration are sometimes speculative, innuendo, rumor, and/or made up 'facts' and GWB can do absolutely nothing that is right in their eyes.

Both groups, I believe, are victims of blind prejudice and are not at all interested in the truth, especially if it would require them to see or understand things differently. And that is sad.

On the other hand, I have profound respect for those who are interested in truth and fairness and who can articulate the reasons for their views whichever side they come down on.

I am grateful when the threads in this forum are civil and not focused on bashing something or somebody more than they are interested in finding the best way to look at something. In these, I invariably learn from the intelligent give and take.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Happy Easter, Frank.

Thank you, Edgar.

Same to you, ole friend.

0 Replies

There is NOTHING wrong with hating a politician or with hating policy(s), nor anything wrong with bashing the hell out of him/her/them.

The only real concerns are:
1) how did I come by my ideas?
2) how willing am I to rethink them?
3) how willing am I to reject consensus?
4) how willing am I to engage a multiplicity of information and opinion sources?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Almost to a person, the people whining and complaining about bush bashing have also virulently bashed the Clintons.

I don't suppose you have evidence to back that up...???

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Almost to a person, the people whining and complaining about bush bashing have also virulently bashed the Clintons.

I don't suppose you have evidence to back that up...???

I'm not on trial or under subpoena good buddy, so I don't feel the need to look back through years of posts on both A2K and abuzz to back up my statement, but I feel certain many many people will agree with it, even some conservatives. :wink:

0 Replies

Well, as one of the conservatives here, I think that's a load of bunk. I haven't seen the equal to the vehemence demonstrated by the "peace loving liberals" here on A2K. Especially from the conservatives that do frequent A2K.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Almost to a person, the people whining and complaining about bush bashing have also virulently bashed the Clintons.

I don't suppose you have evidence to back that up...???

I'm not on trial or under subpoena good buddy, so I don't feel the need to look back through years of posts on both A2K and abuzz to back up my statement, but I feel certain many many people will agree with it, even some conservatives. :wink:

If you stated "some" rather than "almost to a person", you might be right. As written, your statement is bunk, and I likewise need nothing to back up my position, and likewise am confident that many many people will agree, including liberals. :wink:

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Well, as one of the conservatives here, I think that's a load of bunk. I haven't seen the equal to the vehemence demonstrated by the "peace loving liberals" here on A2K. Especially from the conservatives that do frequent A2K.

If I said the sky was blue you'd say it was bunk my friend....... :wink:

you might as well face the fact that the people who "bush bash" genuinely think he's A: Dangerous B: an evil self serving man C: sending this country into the toilet: D: sending the world with it.

don't you find it the least bit disconcerting that this man is disliked by half the population? Does this mean that literally millions of people are ignorant, traitorous, unpatriotic, venomous haters?

That's a rhetorical question.

0 Replies

The furor over Clinton has not abated yet. Republicans just can't get over him. Many do equate Bush bashing with Clinton, failing to see that we regard Bush as a very dangerous man. If Clinton had never been born I would still judge Bush as I now do.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Well, as one of the conservatives here, I think that's a load of bunk. I haven't seen the equal to the vehemence demonstrated by the "peace loving liberals" here on A2K. Especially from the conservatives that do frequent A2K.

If I said the sky was blue you'd say it was bunk my friend.......

Not neccessarily... you sometimes say stuff I agree with...

0 Replies

A2K wasn't open during the Clinton years....

0 Replies

It was not my intent to infer it was, Craven.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

A2K wasn't open during the Clinton years....

I stand corrected on that point Embarrassed

0 Replies

Oh, I didn't mean it to correct anything you'd said, but McG said he hadn't seen conservatives bashing as much here and that was what I was addressing. A2K hasn't seen a Democratic president, so that is understandable.

There's always more noise about the incumbent.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Almost to a person, the people whining and complaining about bush bashing have also virulently bashed the Clintons.

I don't suppose you have evidence to back that up...???

I'm not on trial or under subpoena good buddy, so I don't feel the need to look back through years of posts on both A2K and abuzz to back up my statement, but I feel certain many many people will agree with it, even some conservatives. :wink:

If you stated "some" rather than "almost to a person", you might be right. As written, your statement is bunk, and I likewise need nothing to back up my position, and likewise am confident that many many people will agree, including liberals. :wink:

Arguing semantics my friend? How very Clintonesque.. Laughing

0 Replies

"Bush bashing" never bothered me, but Bush's bashing of our troops, economy, and our international reputation bothers me a whole bunch.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Bush bashing" never bothered me, but Bush's bashing of our ... economy ... bothers me a whole bunch.

Yeah, Bush is bashing the economy so badly that unemployment is lower than the average under Clinton, we've had multiple quarters of solid growth ... I love it! A "jobless recovery" that includes JOBS! What will the left think of next?

And if this is a "jobless recovery" then Clinton presided over a "jobless boom". Cool

If I had any doubts before, CI, this wipes them away. You clearly WANT to believe that the economy is in the toilet, and you aren't going to let any facts get in your way.

Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know