|
Question for the bush-bashers (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancechaos |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
As for digi's questions, i can actually i agree with you here. even tho i don't like him very much myself i think too many people that really don't have a clue hate him and continue bashing on him all the time |
george bush is a dumbass end of story. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
So many non-American's with so many opinions on how America should work and what America should do... :rolleyes: |
I completely disagree...this is SUCH a cop-out. Why is an American any more qualified to discuss this issue than a non-American???
Yes, it's easy to be a critic when you have less of a vested interest in the situation...but that doesn't mean your criticisms are any less valid.
To answer Diginut...
Bush is a public figure, plain and simple. Our laws even provide that a public figure is afforded less privacy protection than the average citizen. eg. if some photographer follows you or me around, snapping pics every day, he could likely be forced to stop. If you're Madonna, you are considered as being "in the public eye" and have little choice but to tolerate that type of behaviour.
I think debates that concern "touchy" subjects like religion, politics, ethincities, etc. are fine...when it is truly a DEBATE and not merely attacking the other person's point of view. ie. debating the existence of God is one thing, telling someone they are a complete idiot for believing/not believing in God is quite another.
I think part of the issue with Bush is the blurring of who and what is being criticized. In saying "Bush is an idiot and the Iraq situation is terrible", some people (for some unknown reason) interpret that as "anti-American", which is ridiculous. I think he and his admininstation have made some terrible decisions and they're suffering the political fallout of a lot of people bad mouthing them, that's all...
Me? I'm pretty strong and stubborn with many of my opinions...but I respect other people's opinions too, if they are well thought out. It's not that I think no intelligent person can disagree...what bothers me is that so many people hold opinions that have no basis in knowledge, fact or experience...they don't even attempt to research their position at all. It's fine to say "I like George Bush" and have nothing to base that on...but if you're going to enter a debate as to whether or not he's doing a good job in office, a little research and evidence is necessary, IMHO. |
|
|
| che |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Using the same logic - So many Americans with so many opionions on how the rest of the world should work and what they should do.
As for digi's questions, i can actually i agree with you here. even tho i don't like him very much myself i think too many people that really don't have a clue hate him and continue bashing on him all the time |
I totally agree with you. On the other hand though i have a dual perspective on things. I go to school in the Midwest (a huge Bush supporter, the Midwest is, not I :D ) and i'm getting really sick of hearing people say how GREAT of a leader GWB is. GWB bashing might be sickening to some and GWB praising is sickening to me. Theres no middle ground. I for one don't like the man, hope and pray that he doesn't get re-elected. |
|
|
| che |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I completely disagree...this is SUCH a cop-out. Why is an American any more qualified to discuss this issue than a non-American???
Yes, it's easy to be a critic when you have less of a vested interest in the situation...but that doesn't mean your criticisms are any less valid.
To answer Diginut...
Bush is a public figure, plain and simple. Our laws even provide that a public figure is afforded less privacy protection than the average citizen. eg. if some photographer follows you or me around, snapping pics every day, he could likely be forced to stop. If you're Madonna, you are considered as being "in the public eye" and have little choice but to tolerate that type of behaviour.
I think debates that concern "touchy" subjects like religion, politics, ethincities, etc. are fine...when it is truly a DEBATE and not merely attacking the other person's point of view. ie. debating the existence of God is one thing, telling someone they are a complete idiot for believing/not believing in God is quite another.
I think part of the issue with Bush is the blurring of who and what is being criticized. In saying "Bush is an idiot and the Iraq situation is terrible", some people (for some unknown reason) interpret that as "anti-American", which is ridiculous. I think he and his admininstation have made some terrible decisions and they're suffering the political fallout of a lot of people bad mouthing them, that's all...
Me? I'm pretty strong and stubborn with many of my opinions...but I respect other people's opinions too, if they are well thought out. It's not that I think no intelligent person can disagree...what bothers me is that so many people hold opinions that have no basis in knowledge, fact or experience...they don't even attempt to research their position at all. It's fine to say "I like George Bush" and have nothing to base that on...but if you're going to enter a debate as to whether or not he's doing a good job in office, a little research and evidence is necessary, IMHO. |
AMEN!!!! |
|
|
| walkindude |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I completely disagree...this is SUCH a cop-out. Why is an American any more qualified to discuss this issue than a non-American???
Yes, it's easy to be a critic when you have less of a vested interest in the situation...but that doesn't mean your criticisms are any less valid.
To answer Diginut...
Bush is a public figure, plain and simple. Our laws even provide that a public figure is afforded less privacy protection than the average citizen. eg. if some photographer follows you or me around, snapping pics every day, he could likely be forced to stop. If you're Madonna, you are considered as being "in the public eye" and have little choice but to tolerate that type of behaviour.
I think debates that concern "touchy" subjects like religion, politics, ethincities, etc. are fine...when it is truly a DEBATE and not merely attacking the other person's point of view. ie. debating the existence of God is one thing, telling someone they are a complete idiot for believing/not believing in God is quite another.
I think part of the issue with Bush is the blurring of who and what is being criticized. In saying "Bush is an idiot and the Iraq situation is terrible", some people (for some unknown reason) interpret that as "anti-American", which is ridiculous. I think he and his admininstation have made some terrible decisions and they're suffering the political fallout of a lot of people bad mouthing them, that's all...
Me? I'm pretty strong and stubborn with many of my opinions...but I respect other people's opinions too, if they are well thought out. It's not that I think no intelligent person can disagree...what bothers me is that so many people hold opinions that have no basis in knowledge, fact or experience...they don't even attempt to research their position at all. It's fine to say "I like George Bush" and have nothing to base that on...but if you're going to enter a debate as to whether or not he's doing a good job in office, a little research and evidence is necessary, IMHO. |
I agree, with the above, + its more important now, more than ever to critisize his actions because having him might not be beneficial for the rest of the world for another 4 years
:nervous: :nervous: |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| If you will continue with trying to change their government then it's no different from what supposedly he's doing - changing other governments - instead of doing it with force though you're trying to do it with other means. You can't make them chose someone - they have to chose their own leader...if he's an idiot and they don't realize it it's their problem and eventuall they will go down...but you can't make that choise for them - who to chose. |
|
|
| boa-redux |
Ronald Reagan was not a MENSA candidate either, but his ability to comunnicate his extreme views eloquently made him the great comunicator and brought about incredible change.US presidents do not govern unilateraly, they are the figure head of a team.
The problem with W is that instead of raising the standard of the country (USA) he chose to lower the standards of the presidency by communicating at the lowest common denominator in order to cater to his constituancy of rednecks, evangelical extremists and the ignorant masses who believe that those opposed to the US are "evil doers".
It is this polarising approach to politics "you are with us or against us" that drives non americans to wish changes in US politics as most people around the world view the US with admiration and are dismayed to see a bunch of fanatics besmerch the American ideal.
George is not a moron, he is just a lousy public orator selling an extremist agenda, a combination that is offensive to most reasonable people. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by boa-redux
George is not a moron, he is just a lousy public orator selling an extremist agenda, a combination that is offensive to most reasonable people. |
Well at least someone starting to make more sense rather than just saying -- he's a moron :p |
|
|
| Tordan |
| ^^ Well said, Mr. Boa-Redux!! |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| Bush should be drowned in a big black pool of Iraqi oil |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tordan
Aaron, why don't you start out by justifying your undying love for George W Bush? Please tell us. |
This is a perfect example of how most of you are missing the point (except in part for Mark and Andrew and starsearcher).
I don't wish to discuss the merits or demerits of George Bush in this thread. For argument's sake, let's concede that he's done a job as president.
But how does that justify, for no particular reason, people coming up to me and saying "Bush is such an idiot, he's got to go." Or "Bush has the IQ of a jar of mayonnaise." Or "Bush is turning America into Nazi Germany."
I've got no problem with political figures doing smears on Bush. I mean, I expect that. Michael Moore (even though he's full of ), John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi - sure, of course they're going to talk about him.
And I've got no problem with people digging up dirt on Bush for the sake of political discussions, as has happened many times on the forum.
What I have a problem with is people who bring this up for no apparent reason in a social context. When I sit down with someone for coffee, I don't expect them to pipe up with "Repent your sins or you'll go to hell." They aren't going to start throwing at me like "Forget quotas for black students, we need to fire all those ing white-trash bigots at the admissions offices." Nobody is going to bring up, as a conversational topic with somebody they barely know, "Abortions are destroying our society, we need to put a stop to them."
Maybe with a close friend, this discussion point would be appropriate. But with a stranger or casual acquaintance, it is not. Everyone knows this. And yet Bush is somehow outside the realm of common courtesy.
How would any of you feel if you had just started a new job and one of your coworkers came at you with "That Paul Martin is such a wad, Canada sucks." What would you think if they went to you and said "Did you know that that nut sack Martin Luther King and that disgusting vaginal wart Gloria Steinem worked for the communists and were trying to ruin America?" Would you feel friendly toward these people if they stopped you at the water cooler and said to you, "Hey, don't you think that scumbucket of a bitch Martha Stewart got what was coming to her?"
The point, which many of you are still missing, is that it's socially inappropriate to use such strong sentiment when you have no idea how the other person feels. But Bush-Bashers seem either totally insensitive to or totally ignorant of other people's beliefs. It's as if nobody in their right mind could possibly feel uncomfortable with a good ole' anti-Bush tirade. Bush-bashing is like roasting marshmallows. It's a social activity for everyone to enjoy.
It goes to figure that half of the responses to this thread have been people talking about why they hate Bush so much. Because that is PRECISELY what I'm talking about - maybe I don't WANT TO KNOW why you hate Bush so much. Maybe I'm NOT INTERESTED in your opinion about that. Maybe, just maybe, it's an inappropriate subject to bring up in conversation unless it's approached with the same degree of care as any other political topic, such as, "So what do you think of president Bush?" Or maybe an even more neutral question like "What do you think of the upcoming election in the USA?" At least that way, if I don't want to hear more anti-Bush rhetoric, I can dodge the subject with "You know I don't really follow American politics."
Is anyone getting it yet? Or do you all still think it's perfectly polite to launch into diatribes against Bush in casual conversation? |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Bush should be drowned in a big black pool of Iraqi oil |
:stongue: :haha: :stongue: Another one...
You completely disregarded of the concept of this discussion and what was said before :p |
|
|
|
|
