53 replies to this topic

[Gefiltefishmon]

This is just a little thing thrown out to ellicit some opinions. And before the usual suspects proclaim it as yet another round of Bush Bashing - it really isn't - I'm actually trying to delve into my own reasons for detesting this human being who has not done one thing to me. Why do I hate him so?

But First - Ronald Reagan

I loved Ronald Reagan. Voted for him twice. In my mind he was a hero (though he never served in the military, that I know of). A real leader who inspired me to work harder to achieve my goals. I loved the way he spoke, with utter certainty and aplomb. He made me feel safe and secure in a very unsecure time. RR answered even the tough questions the press asked him and even when he stepped out of bounds he could rally the troops. Heck, I even voted for Bush the Elder based solely on the fact that he was RR's Veep - and his opponent was a cabbage.

Ronny worked WITH a democratic congress (Tip O'Neil anyone?) got things done, passed legislation and brought down the red menace without firing a shot. Yes he may have precipitated the events which twenty years later led to the creation of Al Qaida - Vis a vis the Muhjahadin in Afghanistan - but I loved him and I was proud to be a Reagan Republican! I even Joined the Military because of Reagan (In part).

So why do I hate Bush the Younger so much?

It's irrational, and I know it's irrational, sorry! I can't stand the man. Everytime he opens his mouth to speak I want to hurl. He has surrounded himself with a group of people I honestly expected to see on America's Most Wanted before I would see them on Meet the Press.

I once had an Irish Setter. It was a very dumb dog. That's not to say it wasn't crafty, or conniving, or manipulative, it was but it was dumb. When I would look into it's eyes, even if it was planning to do something it knew was wrong, it would still give me that "Who? Me? I'm just a dog" look. And that's the exact same look I see on GWB's face every day. I don't trust him, I feel he has intentionally lied too many times to be credible anymore (And yeah, so did Bill Clinton - but his lies were about a little hanky panky in the office - not about leading us to war).

But then there's John Kerry - OI! I think he's a rich east coast liberal who is out of touch, BUT.....

The question really boils down to this. How much damage will John Kerry do versus how much damage will GWB do? Since GWB has a four year head start (and has done, IMHO quite enough damage to be going on with) I'm willing to give someone else a shot.

Edited for spelling and grammer and content

Edited by Gefiltefishmon, 05 July 2004 - 08:52 PM.

[Ogami]

The BBC featured Irish "peace" protesters greeting Bush in Ireland today.

If there's anything that settles the matter of who should be president, it's watching these pieces of human debris shriek and howl their "peaceful" hatred of Bush.

I would much rather be on Bush's side than those nuts who echo Saddam's courtroom appearance when they declare that Bush is a war criminal.

When one's side holds the same opinion of Bush that Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, and Al Zarqawi hold, that's when it's time to be scared.

Not being on the same side of those people lets me sleep peacefully at night.

-Ogami

[Gefiltefishmon]

Quote

When one's side holds the same opinion of Bush that Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, and Al Zarqawi hold, that's when it's time to be scared.

And you are right - You can't compare him to any of these evil dictators. We are not under martial law. We have NOT seen our civil liberties destroyed (ACLU notwithstanding). He's no Hitler or anything like that (And these comparisons only fuel the fire, IMHO). But is it ALL about the war?

Do people around the world really SEE GWB this way?

WHY?

Honestly, I have more of a problem (MUCH more actually) with Cheney, Rumsfield and Ashcroft than I do with GWB - But I admit my dislike is irrational.

[Godeskian]

Ogami, on Jul 6 2004, 03:21 AM, said:

If there's anything that settles the matter of who should be president, it's watching these pieces of human debris shriek and howl their "peaceful" hatred of Bush.

Protest is a legitimate form of expression you know.

As long as it remains non-violent

[Delvo]

Gefiltefishmon, on Jul 5 2004, 05:28 PM, said:

It's irrational, and I know it's irrational, sorry! I can't stand the man...

I feel he has intentionally lied too many times to be credible anymore... about leading us to war.

These things are inherently contradictory. If he lied to get us into a war, then hating him is perfectly rational. If hating him is irrational, then there must be no sound basis for it such as his having started a war on a lie. So answering the question requires first figuring out which one is the case, and thus what the question is: Is it how you came to feel something that's irrational, or is it how you came to call it irrational when (according to the standard you gave about what he's done) it's not? And in fact the things that his opponents keep saying he lied about were true, so that settles that; it's the former.

For that matter, the second paragraph I quoted contradicts itself, by taking something that's a matter of fact (either he lied or he didn't) and treating it as a matter of opinion and feeling.

In fact, it's this "feel the facts" thing that answers the question of how you came to feel something that the facts don't support: Bush's opponents have, true to their usual form and the usual form of most other irrational social/political movements, waged a ubiquitous and intense campaign of emotional manipulation, and it's worked on many people whose feelings have turned out to sway with the emotional wind that they're given. They're told and shown what to feel, and they go along with it, often even to the point of claiming "facts" to support it that aren't real.

Edited by Delvo, 06 July 2004 - 07:37 AM.

[sierraleone]

Delvo, on Jul 6 2004, 07:34 AM, said:

Gefiltefishmon, on Jul 5 2004, 05:28 PM, said:

It's irrational, and I know it's irrational, sorry! I can't stand the man...

I feel he has intentionally lied too many times to be credible anymore... about leading us to war.

These things are inherently contradictory. If he lied to get us into a war, then hating him is perfectly rational. If hating him is irrational, then there must be no sound basis for it such as his having started a war on a lie. So answering the question requires first figuring out which one is the case, and thus what the question is: Is it how you came to feel something that's irrational, or is it how you came to call it irrational when (according to the standard you gave about what he's done) it's not? And in fact the things that his opponents keep saying he lied about were true, so that settles that; it's the former.

For that matter, the second paragraph I quoted contradicts itself, by taking something that's a matter of fact (either he lied or he didn't) and treating it as a matter of opinion and feeling.

In fact, it's this "feel the facts" thing that answers the question of how you came to feel something that the facts don't support: Bush's opponents have, true to their usual form and the usual form of most other irrational social/political movements, waged a ubiquitous and intense campaign of emotional manipulation, and it's worked on many people whose feelings have turned out to sway with the emotional wind that they're given. They're told and shown what to feel, and they go along with it, often even to the point of claiming "facts" to support it that aren't real.

Not being able to stand the man and hating him as a person, can be different from hating his politics, if you look at them as two different entities. Not that I'm saying this is the case .

I understand what Gefiltfishmon means, though, I can't stand watching him on TV either   And I don't know neccessarily if it has anything to do w/ his politics, I don't watch him long enough to know, I'm so turned off by his presence and manner that I won't watch any further.

For example, I can hate watching an actor on screen and think them an awefull actor, but I'll usually seperate that from hating the person, I won't hate the person because I don't know them.

[Robert Hewitt Wolfe]

I know exactly what you mean, Gefitefishmon.  I cast my ballot for Reagan the first time I ever stepped up to the voting booth.  I also voted for GHWB, though I must say I was disappointed in his administration.  In my heart of hearts, I'd really rather vote Republican than Democrat... hell, I'm pretty well off, so in my pocketbook I feel the same way... but I can't stomach the GOP these days.  What the hell happened to the party of Reagan?  

[G1223]

Good Question.

I fear a Democratic Regime to be after my right to lawfully  own a Firearm.  I know other might not want one and that is their choice. I also fear a concept of tax the rich to pay for the poor or at least till there are no more rich folks to tax. Add in a nearly falling over themselves attitude about certain race,and a seeing to their needs before addressing just the problem as a whole. Addressing the security of the US like it's a poor stepchild.

Both Sides scare about supressing my right to speak.  The left with the PC revisionist movement and the Right with it's certain things cannot be talked about  hideboundism.

The republicans tie themselevs too close to some folks who just think they know what is good for me. Rather than letting me discover it for myself. I feel bothered with some of the feeling that the deal has been made long before I ever got to the table when dealing with them.

I have not been happy with some of spending but with the economy beginning to truely bounce back things are getting better.

[Redshirt #24]

^ On a slight non-partisan tangent: am I being excessively cynical, or at some point during the late 80s/very early 90s did things officially change from "voting for the best candidate for the position" to "voting for the candidate who can do the least amount of damage"?

[WildChildCait]

Because under GWB's watch I am seeing rights eroded for the americans. Because under GWB's watch I am losing my right as a citizen of this world  to visit part of it without incurring aditional costs in both time, and money (biometric passports or spending a day aquiring a ridiculously expensive visa). Because under GWB's watch I am hearing proposals that are so against the 'green' in me that it makes me sick. (drilling in the rockies? drilling in the alaskan oil reserves? heck, Kyoto anyone?).

Oh, and for the record, you don't have to be pro Saddam et all to be against Bush

Chaddee

[HubcapDave]

Quote

Because under GWB's watch I am losing my right as a citizen of this world to visit part of it without incurring aditional costs in both time, and money (biometric passports or spending a day aquiring a ridiculously expensive visa).

Please tell me what document gives us rights as "citizens of the world"? I haven't seen that one.

[HubcapDave]

Now, I'd like to add to this discussion one of the reasons I like our president.

http://www.washingto...icle_9003.shtml

I see stories like that, and I know that this man has heart, has compassion, that he cares about the people of this nation. I don't agree with everything he does, but (all things being equal) I think he is head and shoulders above anyone the Democrats have to offer (with perhaps the execption of Liebermann).

[Gefiltefishmon]

Quote

I know exactly what you mean, Gefitefishmon. I cast my ballot for Reagan the first time I ever stepped up to the voting booth. I also voted for GHWB, though I must say I was disappointed in his administration. In my heart of hearts, I'd really rather vote Republican than Democrat... hell, I'm pretty well off, so in my pocketbook I feel the same way... but I can't stomach the GOP these days. What the hell happened to the party of Reagan?

And that's another point! Just because I have a few shekels to rub together does not automatically assure the GOP of my vote, yet they continue to invite me to thousand dollar a plate dinners to support Cheney! I'd rather eat a live chunk of uranium. If the "aroma of thuggery" were to dissipate, then I would perhaps return to the party, but not until there is a serious change of focus and mentality.

[Gefiltefishmon]

Quote

So answering the question requires first figuring out which one is the case, and thus what the question is: Is it how you came to feel something that's irrational, or is it how you came to call it irrational when (according to the standard you gave about what he's done) it's not? And in fact the things that his opponents keep saying he lied about were true, so that settles that; it's the former.

Actually Delvo, I DO believe he lied about a lot of things, including his "reasoning" for war. Since it has been revealed that, for a fact, the Administration knew there was no "African Uranium", no WMD's and no AQ-Iraq link; thus my hate would be irrational. However, merely lying would not normally induce such a response from me. Everybody lies. It's the reasons behind it that matter to me. Reagan lied about what he knew and when; he lied to Gorbachev. Clinton lied about Women. GHWB lied about Iran Contra (he DIDN'T know??!!). Bush the younger has lied so consistently and directly and baldfaced that I'm surprised he hasn't had an apoplectic fit trying to keep his lies straight.

Of course he may not have ever intentionally lied - I'll admit the possibility that his advisors lied to him and he in turn passed on what he believed to be the truth to us. This crime, however is far worse than lying. Blind, ignorant trust in the words of others (Rove/Rumsfield/Cheney/Wolfstein) who have proven their ability to lie, cheat and misuse the truth for thier own ends is far more heinous of a crime. The Crime of bad judgement - And from that there is no recourse.

If only McCain had won the nomination!!!!!

But, if you believe the propaganda, he was doomed from the start - labeled "Uncontrollable" by the "Shadow Organization" that runs the GOP.
If you believe the propaganda.....

Or is it like the old expression "It ain't bragging if you can do it"? Is it "propaganda" if it's true?

[Gefiltefishmon]

Quote

am I being excessively cynical, or at some point during the late 80s/very early 90s did things officially change from "voting for the best candidate for the position" to "voting for the candidate who can do the least amount of damage"?

No, Redshirt, I don't think you are being excessively cynical. It started with Clintons second term I think, though some may claim it started before that. Since the Primary system often selects the best campaigner, not the best candidate (or even best for the job) it often becomes who is the least dangerous.

Honestly I can't think of many people (Besides Buchanon, Larouche, Limbaugh, or Jessie Helms) who would be MORE dangerous to civilization than GWB.

[G1223]

You forgot Franken the editoral staff of the NY/LA Times Dan Rather spokeman for CBS editorial department.  these men are just as dangerous.

[Gefiltefishmon]

Oh yeah they are - but thankfully the laughable "Air America" network will wither on the vine of it's own over-intellectual highbrow attempts to be self-righteous

[Drew]

Chaddee, on Jul 6 2004, 03:06 PM, said:

Because under GWB's watch I am seeing rights eroded for the americans.

I am an American, and my rights are not being eroded at all.  

[MuseZack]

Drew, on Jul 7 2004, 01:14 AM, said:

Chaddee, on Jul 6 2004, 03:06 PM, said:

Because under GWB's watch I am seeing rights eroded for the americans.

I am an American, and my rights are not being eroded at all.  

Which is meaningless.  Even under dictatorships (and no, I'm not saying we live under a dictatorship), most people get left alone if they stay out of trouble

[Delvo]

Gefiltefishmon, on Jul 6 2004, 05:04 PM, said:

Actually Delvo, I DO believe he lied about a lot of things, including his "reasoning" for war.

That understanding of the "facts" would be a perfectly natural and rational cause for the emotion of hatred as you describe it, so hating him if that's your belief is not irrational at all. War is severely nasty stuff; it's not something a decent person would cause while playing games with the reasons like that.

Quote

Since it has been revealed that, for a fact, the Administration knew there was no "African Uranium", no WMD's and no AQ-Iraq link

It was just reported within the last week or so that, in fact, not only is it a known fact that Iraq DID try to get uranium from Africa, but in fact that fact was so solidly and irrefutably established that none of the European agencies that had said so ever backed off from that statement. Nor has any agency of any country backed off from the WMD facts that all had agreed on all along, or tried to hide the fact that we've been seeing evidence from Iraq that they were all right all along (the argument from other countries never having been that the WMDs weren't there, but just that the Baathist regime should be left alone with them anyway). And no intelligence source has ever seriously claimed there were no Iraq-AQ links, either, not that it would matter since Bush never claimed that as a reason for the war, and the 9/11 Commission's report, which certainly doesn't come from a group that could be called pro-Bush at all, says that the links were indeed there.

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about; every single thing they Democrats say is a Bush lie is actually a truth that the Democrats want to hide by lying about it themselves.

Quote

...thus my hate would be irrational.

...based on the contents that I quoted and responded to above? No, if he did all that lying, hating him would make perfect sense. If starting a war for fictional reasons isn't cause for hatred, what would be? That's a rational emotional response, given that set of circumstances. So either the circumstance of Bush lying us into a war is real and hating him for it is rational, or hating him is irrational only because that circumstance isn't the reality because he didn't do that horrible thing.

Quote

However, merely lying would not normally induce such a response from me... It's the reasons behind it that matter to me.

And that's what would make hating him for these lies a perfectly rational reaction to the facts as one understands them, if one believes that's what he has done.

Quote

If only McCain had won the nomination!!!!!

But, if you believe the propaganda, he was doomed from the start - labeled "Uncontrollable" by the "Shadow Organization" that runs the GOP.

He was doomed from the start because he keeps working against Republicans and for Democrats.

Edited by Delvo, 06 July 2004 - 08:51 PM.