Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Scrat attacks me for my view because I have not laid it out for him personally. My response is, the facts have been laid out endlessly, pro and con, for three years. I see no need to restate what has been stated hundreds, thousands of times, even. We have all seen the facts from our own perspectives and have all got our takes set in stone. If he despises me for how I state my opinion, even after I offered him a Pabst Blue Ribbon, screw 'im.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

You can't throw a stone around A2K without hitting a dozen such. Some have intelligence and others do not, but not one is using theirs in any rational way when the name "Bush" is in play. I despise these. There are those who react the same way to the name "Clinton", and I despise them too. These unthinking partisan zealots don't deserve the freedom they have or the voice they use in their sideshow version of debate. They don't care what the facts are; they are for more interested in how strongly they feel about things. They are children. Sadly for this country, they are children with votes.

1) It sounds as though you "despise" different things from what the Bush haters and Clinton haters "despise."

2) Despising Bush haters and Clinton haters really has no better substance than despising Bush or Clinton -- nor doe is show any less "unthinking zealotry" nor any more maturity.

3) I truly do understand what you are attempting to say here, Scrat, and I respect your right to say it -- but if ever there has been a case of pots calling kettles black, that is what is happening here. For you to suggest that some people "don't deserve the freedom they have or the voice they use in their sideshow version of debate" simply because they despise something other than what you despise is inappropriate

0 Replies

I tried to point out that my dislike of Bush was not from partisan feelings. I would oppose any Republican for office, but Bush has gone beyond being just a Republican. He is absolutely the bottom of the barrel, which is where the rotton fruit gathers. I have voted for some Republicans in the past. Even fondly recall Ford. But, the mindset that approves of Bush is worse than childish; it is destroying many fundamentals of what it used to mean to be American. He is worse than a loose cannon when he invades Iraq, Haiti, etc.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Scrat wrote:
You can't throw a stone around A2K without hitting a dozen such. Some have intelligence and others do not, but not one is using theirs in any rational way when the name "Bush" is in play. I despise these. There are those who react the same way to the name "Clinton", and I despise them too. These unthinking partisan zealots don't deserve the freedom they have or the voice they use in their sideshow version of debate. They don't care what the facts are; they are for more interested in how strongly they feel about things. They are children. Sadly for this country, they are children with votes.

1) It sounds as though you "despise" different things from what the Bush haters and Clinton haters "despise."

2) Despising Bush haters and Clinton haters really has no better substance than despising Bush or Clinton -- nor doe is show any less "unthinking zealotry" nor any more maturity.

3) I truly do understand what you are attempting to say here, Scrat, and I respect your right to say it -- but if ever there has been a case of pots calling kettles black, that is what is happening here. For you to suggest that some people "don't deserve the freedom they have or the voice they use in their sideshow version of debate" simply because they despise something other than what you despise is inappropriate

With all due respect (and my continued fondness and admiration, of course), NONSENSE. I have stated that I despise people for behaving in a certain way. That is an apple to the orange of hating Bush or hating Clinton without regard to the specific behavior either takes.

Clinton bombed Iraq, and some conservatives complained of it, then supported Bush when he attacked Iraq. Now, sure there were differences in the big picture at the time, but I believe a good deal of the difference in how these two acts were perceived by these people came from unthinking hatred. These people didn't disagree with bombing Iraq, they simply sided against it because Clinton made the call.

On the flipside, Bush has been putting money on the ground in Africa and making a real difference in the fight against famine there, but when you point this out to most liberals you'd be daft to expect so much as a "gee, that's good..." from them, because they are viscerally opposed to finding anything right in anything he does.

So, if you want to divorce the notion of despising someone from the reason why, then sure, it's all the same thing. But I think it is very different to despise a behavior than it is to unquestioningly, unthinkingly despise a person based on what that person represents to you. It's ignorant, mob mentality. The liberal left gives Bush no more real thought than the average southern racist 100 years ago gave to a black man. In both cases the person's perceptions were guided not by facts or substance, but by ignorance and hatred.

I suspect that most of the liberals I have come across here in A2K are reasonably intelligent people, but it is evident that many of them simply shut off any rational, dispassionate consideration of the facts when they see the name "Bush". I wrote that I despise them, but what I should have written is that I despise the fact that they do this; I despise the behavior. I also wonder sometimes why people do it. Why just assume that everything a Clinton or a Bush says or does must be motivated by evil, greed, lust, ... ? Why not take a dispassionate look at each thing the man does and measure it as you would if it came from someone you knew nothing about?

My suspicion is that if people did that, political parties would have far less power in this country, and political debate would be far more valuable and substantive. But the reality seems to be that some people need to hate someone or something, and their drive to hate far exceeds their drive to learn, to consider, to examine; to think.

And yes, I despise that.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Scrat wrote:
You can't throw a stone around A2K without hitting a dozen such. Some have intelligence and others do not, but not one is using theirs in any rational way when the name "Bush" is in play. I despise these. There are those who react the same way to the name "Clinton", and I despise them too. These unthinking partisan zealots don't deserve the freedom they have or the voice they use in their sideshow version of debate. They don't care what the facts are; they are for more interested in how strongly they feel about things. They are children. Sadly for this country, they are children with votes.

1) It sounds as though you "despise" different things from what the Bush haters and Clinton haters "despise."

2) Despising Bush haters and Clinton haters really has no better substance than despising Bush or Clinton -- nor doe is show any less "unthinking zealotry" nor any more maturity.

3) I truly do understand what you are attempting to say here, Scrat, and I respect your right to say it -- but if ever there has been a case of pots calling kettles black, that is what is happening here. For you to suggest that some people "don't deserve the freedom they have or the voice they use in their sideshow version of debate" simply because they despise something other than what you despise is inappropriate

With all due respect (and my continued fondness and admiration, of course), NONSENSE. I have stated that I despise people for behaving in a certain way. That is an apple to the orange of hating Bush or hating Clinton without regard to the specific behavior either takes.

Clinton bombed Iraq, and some conservatives complained of it, then supported Bush when he attacked Iraq. Now, sure there were differences in the big picture at the time, but I believe a good deal of the difference in how these two acts were perceived by these people came from unthinking hatred. These people didn't disagree with bombing Iraq, they simply sided against it because Clinton made the call.

On the flipside, Bush has been putting money on the ground in Africa and making a real difference in the fight against famine there, but when you point this out to most liberals you'd be daft to expect so much as a "gee, that's good..." from them, because they are viscerally opposed to finding anything right in anything he does.

So, if you want to divorce the notion of despising someone from the reason why, then sure, it's all the same thing. But I think it is very different to despise a behavior than it is to unquestioningly, unthinkingly despise a person based on what that person represents to you. It's ignorant, mob mentality. The liberal left gives Bush no more real thought than the average southern racist 100 years ago gave to a black man. In both cases the person's perceptions were guided not by facts or substance, but by ignorance and hatred.

I suspect that most of the liberals I have come across here in A2K are reasonably intelligent people, but it is evident that many of them simply shut off any rational, dispassionate consideration of the facts when they see the name "Bush". I wrote that I despise them, but what I should have written is that I despise the fact that they do this; I despise the behavior. I also wonder sometimes why people do it. Why just assume that everything a Clinton or a Bush says or does must be motivated by evil, greed, lust, ... ? Why not take a dispassionate look at each thing the man does and measure it as you would if it came from someone you knew nothing about?

My suspicion is that if people did that, political parties would have far less power in this country, and political debate would be far more valuable and substantive. But the reality seems to be that some people need to hate someone or something, and their drive to hate far exceeds their drive to learn, to consider, to examine; to think.

And yes, I despise that.

With an abundance of respect...I must continue to disagree with you on this point.

Your argument here seems to me to reduce to something you said very early on in your response:

Quote:

I have stated that I despise people for behaving in a certain way. That is an apple to the orange of hating Bush or hating Clinton without regard to the specific behavior either takes.

Just what makes you suppose folks like me (I despise George ADubyaOL Bush with a passion) -- are not motivated by his behavior?

Do you suppose I -- or any of the others here who despise him -- despise him because of the clothes he wears -- or the vacuous, ignoranat look he has on his face most of the time?

We despise him for his behavior -- for what he is doing this country and for what people he has put into authority are doing to this country.

You certainly have a right to your opinion, Scrat, and mostly I enjoy reading what you have to say. But the post to which I took exception IS a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

ASIDE: I am enjoying the threads you started that quote Ann Coulter and Mona Charen. Boy...do I despise those two witches. And the one by Ollie North is a gas also. Now there is an example of someone who proudly said: "I was just following orders" when put to the test! I cannot get over the fact that the conservative community adores him rather than being sickened by him. He is pure punk.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Just what makes you suppose folks like me (I despise George ADubyaOL Bush with a passion) -- are not motivated by his behavior?

Well, I had not placed you in that particular basket, but lets assume you are for the moment. Pretend Bin Laden surrendered tomorrow and all of Al Qaeda agreed to lay down their arms and eschew terror. Pretend the economy began adding jobs at an astronomical rate. If you were behaving like the folks I'm writing about, you'd find a way to see those as bad things, or you'd deny that they happened, or you'd deny that they had anything to do with anything Bush did; anything to avoid seeing something positive in the golem you see where the man Bush actually is.

There are a lot of things I despise about Bill Clinton, but I have commented publicly when I thought he got something right, did something good. There are some who could not bring themselves to do so.

So, it's up to you whether you are a mindless Bush-hater or not. I hadn't really noticed either way. I suspect you have a considerable bias against him, but aren't as unthinking about it as some. I'll try to only despise you a little. Cool

0 Replies

Scrat's big mistake is assuming that hatred of Bush equates to mindlessnes. I on the other hand equate support of Bush as mindlessness.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Scrat's big mistake is assuming that hatred of Bush equates to mindlessnes. I on the other hand equate support of Bush as mindlessness.

Of course you do, and that's just the kind of unthinking and irrational position I'd expect from you.

To someone who hates <insert name>, anyone who simply fails to hate <insert name> looks like someone who loves <insert name>.

Of course, the FACTS evident in my writing here show that I have complained of the things I think Bush has done wrong and supported those things I think he's done right. (The same is true of Clinton, by the way.) While I have neither the time nor inclination to educate myself about everything you have written about Bush here in A2K, I would suspect that you would be hard pressed to show me a single positive thing you've written about him.

Of course, I could be wrong in your specific case, but A2K is rife with morons who never read a negative claim about Bush that they didn't take into their heart as gospel truth without so much as wondering about the facts (or lack thereof) behind it. To them, Bush was AWOL because they believe it, and they believe it because they hate him. To them, Bush used cocaine, period. Their proof of this? Why should they need proof? They hate Bush. Period. These are imbeciles. These are people who give stupid people a bad name. And yes, there are people just like them among conservatives and I hold them equally in contempt.

::

It's pretty simple... (I'm a pretty simple person) you either come at the news of the day with skepticism and an eye on keeping your own bias to the side while you try your best to figure out what the facts are, or your opinions are without value and you are a liability to liberty, to our nation, and to the world.

0 Replies

I am no Clinton lover. I voted for someone else last time he ran. My dislike of Bush began growing before he became an active politician even. It was already common knowledge to those who wished to know the truth back then that Bush was a shady businessman, that he dishonored his uniform. As President he has not simply lied to get us into Iraq; he has adopted the neocon strategy of preemptive wars. He has pursued domestic policies that award his cronies at the expense of working Americans. He works against the right of abortion choice; he was involved in dirty tricks in Florida; he says that SS for young people should be reduced while spending money like a drunken sailor for his pet projects; he's mortgaging my children's future by cutting taxes while increasing spending - In short, these and other things about him makes him not just wrong, but one to be hated.

0 Replies

EB - Well, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you aren't thinking when you believe you are, but there's very little in your latest screed that suggests you are anything other than a knee-jerk anti-Bush type. You write of all the things you've heard and read of the man as if there were never a positive word written or spoken about him. It appears to me that you have pre-filtered your "facts" to arrive at the conclusion you chose. That's fine, of course. I'm sure you're a splendid fellow otherwise, but your credibility where Bush and these issues are concerned is impeached by your own citations regarding him.

I'm not suggesting that you lack the ability to think and see things with an unbiased eye, just that you don't appear to be doing so where Bush is concerned.

But hey, I could be wrong.... happened once already today, on another thread here in A2K! Cool

0 Replies

You can misinterpret what I think all you wish, Scrat. Yet, the truth remains the truth.

0 Replies

There is no "truth" to the absurd, childish plaint that he was involved in dirty tricks in FL. That one right there earns you my disdain. No offense, but when I see someone complaining of the liberal myths of FL2000, I am forced to conclude that the person is either not too bright or way too partisan for rational discussion of facts.

0 Replies

You puzzle me, Scrat. Do you attack people so recklessly because you truly don't understand how it is they see a truth that you can't fathom, or is it vindictiveness because they disagree with your pet theories? You remind me of a horse with blinders charging into a battle it barely can see a portion of. I feel a bit sorry for people so consumed with anger.

0 Replies

Rod Paige, the Secretary of Education, called America's largest teachers' union a "terrorist organization." Sign the petition calling on President Bush to fire Rod Paige.

Dear MoveOn member,
Last month, President Bush's Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, called America's largest teachers' union a "terrorist organization." Why? Because the union had the gall to insist that President Bush live up to his own promises to adequately fund education. Please sign our petition demanding that President Bush fire Secretary Paige.

http://www.FirePaige.org/index.asp?ms=1

This is typical behavior for the Bush administration. It says one thing - "no child left behind" and does another - under-funding its promises to our schools by $9.4 billion in its latest budget proposal. And when people dare to disagree with its policies, it questions their patriotism or labels them terrorists.

0 Replies

I do believe Paige was joking. Tasteless joke, and one that sure betrays a lot about the underlying mindset there - but still, important caveat, there.

0 Replies

nimh, Even if Paige was joking, that's about the dumbest thing anybody in this administration could say about the Teacher's Union. "Terrorist organization?" He's gotta understand not many teachers are gonna take that as a "joke."

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

You puzzle me, Scrat. Do you attack people so recklessly because you truly don't understand how it is they see a truth that you can't fathom, or is it vindictiveness because they disagree with your pet theories? You remind me of a horse with blinders charging into a battle it barely can see a portion of. I feel a bit sorry for people so consumed with anger.

Edgar - Any anger you think you perceive could only be a reflection in the monitor. I'm not angry with you for thinking silly conspiracy theories about the 2000 election are true, if anything, I'm disappointed to find you that simple. I don't have "pet theories", nor do I mind rational, informed disagreement. What I do lack patience with is mindless bias and hatred wrapped in a pretense of smugness, and people who seem blissfully willing to believe as fact anything and everything that simply suits their personal desires. Cretins who cry about the "stolen" election that was in fact legitimately won. Hell, every unofficial recount (the ones people like you used to like to say would prove the issue once and for all) showed Bush had won the election, but people like you never met a fact you couldn't simply step around if it failed to support your "pet theories". Now I'd better let you go, Bush probably has a black helicopter circling your house. You might want to go hide. :wink:

0 Replies

Looking down your nose at people and calling them names when they disagree with you is about as childish and simple minded as they come, Scrat. Your mantra that everyone different than you is a cretin, consumed with mindless hatred, etc., just makes your false sense of superiority stand up like a monkey in a uniform and people take it that seriously.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Looking down your nose at people and calling them names when they disagree with you is about as childish and simple minded as they come, Scrat. Your mantra that everyone different than you is a cretin, consumed with mindless hatred, etc., just makes your false sense of superiority stand up like a monkey in a uniform and people take it that seriously.

Had I said or written anything like that ("different than <me> is a cretin..." it would certainly have been simple-minded of me. But of course, we both know I didn't write anything resembling that. I see no purpose in restating what you can read for yourself just up there. The record of what I wrote puts your straw man to the lie. I take no pleasure in looking down my nose at anyone, but certain behavior is deserving of contempt.

HOWEVER... I suppose it is a bit over the top for me to suggest that just because I think you aren't thinking rationally in certain cases, that you never do. The problem from my point of view is (and treat this as my opinion, of course) if you've shown me that you don't care about facts or reality in one case, what weight can I give your opinions in any other?

But seriously, there is no anger on my side of this. A loss of respect for your opinions, certainly, but no anger whatsoever.

0 Replies

Given that EB has already stated his knowledge of Bush's behavior before his theft of the 2000 election, and spcifically detailed what has lead him to his contempt--your question: if you've shown me that you don't care about facts or reality in one case, what weight can I give your opinions in any other? is the real straw man here. EB refers to his shady business dealings, which have been widely reported in the press. He refers to his "service" record, which has been widely reported in the press. EB is a resident of the state which had the misfortune to have the Shrub for a Governor. Taken all in all, i will always prefer EB's opinion on politics and politicians in Tejas over your partisan rants and sneers, Scrat. I also fully agree with EB that you quickly get nasty, and question the intellect and integrity of anyone who disagrees with you. Of course, i did agree yesterday to lower my expectations of you--and pointed out that this would take my expectations to an all-time low.

0 Replies

Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know