|
Question for the bush-bashers (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| boa-redux |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
As I said, I'm not referring to political discussions or statements made by politicians - I'm referring to typical social situations in which people normally shy away from strong political statements.
[/COLOR][/FONT] |
Perhaps people are just frustrated that the democratic system could have gone so wrong and lead to the election of a demagogue.
In the absence of power to affect change, people find a refuge in public expression of their frustration. |
|
|
| psychosomatica |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]Nobody has ever said any of these things to me in casual conversation - only in political debates.
As I said, I'm not referring to political discussions or statements made by politicians - I'm referring to typical social situations in which people normally shy away from strong political statements.
Do people say these things to you in everyday settings?
Jeff, you make a very good point. Fortunately I can take some solace in the fact that these disturbing emotional outbursts come from people who will have no say in the upcoming election (even though, as I said before, I'm not rooting for Bush). |
Well then you have to define where the line is drawn for political conversation and casual conversation. "Bush is an idiot" does not come up out of nowhere.. People are usually talking about Iraq, al-qaeda or terrorism.
I think that by saying "... typical social situations in which people normally shy away from strong political statements" is already self-defeating to a discussion.. it's almost like asking "Can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift? And why can't he lift it if he can do anything?" It doesn't seem paradoxical, but is nearly or already there..
note of caution: this is open to discussion.. and it is not a personal attack on your reasoning or logic.. |
|
|
| Tordan |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
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. |
Why shouldn't we voice our opinions on how we feel about Bush, the person and the president? I personally think he's a ing moron and an unfit president. Diginut, in your opinion, why should I only reserve my feelings for "friends" and not for "strangers and casual acquaintances"? Last time I checked we live in a democratic society where we do have the right to voice our opinions to whomever we want.
"And yet Bush is somehow outside the realm of common courtesy."
I'm sorry, but this just makes me laugh. Do you think Bush even gave a passing thought to the thousands of innocent families left broken and homeless due to a strike he signed off on? Do you think he tosses and turns in his bed at night knowing that his actions might have led to the death of innocent people in this unnecessary war? Doesn't seem to bother him, he looks well rested every time I see him on TV. [No, I did not research Bush’s sleeping patterns on Google. This was just an observation.] And this is the man we should include in the realm of common courtesy? |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Actually yes it does and I used that logic when it came to my wedding day.
Your say in my wedding was directly proportional to the contributions being made.
Critisize all you want, but unless you have the guts to actually do something to make a definite, positive change in someone's life then you're just wasting time and energy. |
that's great...but far from logical, no?
I think people simply recognizing and criticizing the status quo is a good thing...why is it so hard to imagine that the people in positions to actually enact change aren't NECESSARILY the best ones at recognizing a problem and/or devising the solution. That's the point I'm making...my being a Canadian doesn't preclude me from having relevant and valid opinions or insights into U.S. politics (and I'm not saying I do...but I could research and follow U.S. politics just as thoroughly as virtually any American could). |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
that's great...but far from logical, no?
|
How so?
It worked out great btw... :)
| quote: |
I think people simply recognizing and criticizing the status quo is a good thing...why is it so hard to imagine that the people in positions to actually enact change aren't NECESSARILY the best ones at recognizing a problem and/or devising the solution. That's the point I'm making...my being a Canadian doesn't preclude me from having relevant and valid opinions or insights into U.S. politics (and I'm not saying I do...but I could research and follow U.S. politics just as thoroughly as virtually any American could). |
True, a 3rd party unbiased check is a good idea but that's the problem; finding a 3rd party that's unbiased.
Who plays the referee in a world forum?
The UN is 'supposed' to fill that role but it's quickly becoming old and busted. |
|
|
| DJ El Kay Dee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
The UN is 'supposed' to fill that role but it's quickly becoming old and busted. |
remember where the UN headquarters are and who really runs the UN |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ El Kay Dee
remember where the UN headquarters are and who really runs the UN |
Yea, it's in New York; So? Why should that matter?
Just because the U.S. makes most of the contributions doesn't mean they run it...
If they did then they would have when into Iraq with U.N. approval. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I don't even see the point in responding to most of this. I ask how you think the constant Bush-bashing is appropriate, and you respond with more Bush bashing. Brilliant! Thank you for proving my point.
---
I only have one other question. And I'm obviously not expecting any humble or honest answers in this thread. I don't even care what the answers will be. I only want some of you to reflect on this:
When you first started hearing all the trash talking about Bush, when you were still undecided on him and not sure what to believe (and I'm sure all of you must have faced at least a brief period like this)...
Did any of you, during this period or anytime afterwards, even one time, decide to question the validity of the allegations against him and/or look up some information from a pro-Bush/non-partisan source to investigate the other side of the story? Or if somebody sent you a "dissident" article to read, did you have the willpower to read through the whole thing (even if your instinct was to believe it was total bullcrap)?
Or, did you just put out a hearty "talk to the hand" as soon as you realized that the article was pro-Bush or pro-Republican (or not even pro-Bush - merely "not anti-Bush")?
For many of you, your defense of the Bush-bashing bandwagon centers around your pride of our nation's political awareness (or perhaps simply your own). Political awareness involves looking at both sides of the coin. If you can't think of even a single good thing to say about Bush, perhaps you aren't as knowledgeable or as enlightened as you think. No president in history has done everything wrong. We could find at least one or two beneficial consequences of Hitler's reign, if we were so inclined.
In fact, if you are so hard-pressed to come up with even a few positive consequences of the USA's actions in Iraq (albeit the many negative consequences), then you are really not informed at all.
--
If Bush Bashing is the social norm, and many of you are saying that it is, it stands to reason that a great many people are just going with the proverbial flow. For those of you who claim to be above the pettiness of social conformity, you might want to ask yourself just exactly how independently your opinions on this issue were formed. Just because everybody believes something does not make it true - I can think of many, MANY instances in history where the exact opposite has been the case, and the consequences have never been pretty.
For the record, I'll reiterate that I've never stated or believed that Bush is a model president - simply that a lot of the hate speech about him which propagates through our daily lives is grossly skewed or even fabricated. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
--
If Bush Bashing is the social norm, and many of you are saying that it is, it stands to reason that a great many people are just going with the proverbial flow. For those of you who claim to be above the pettiness of social conformity, you might want to ask yourself just exactly how independently your opinions on this issue were formed. Just because everybody believes something does not make it true - I can think of many, MANY instances in history where the exact opposite has been the case, and the consequences have never been pretty.
|
ie. Churchill's War |
|
|
| discojoe |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I don't even see the point in responding to most of this. I ask how you think the constant Bush-bashing is appropriate, and you respond with more Bush bashing. Brilliant! Thank you for proving my point.
|
I think the reason nobody has answered it is because its a stupid question. If you want to go practice social norms or etiquette or whatever, get off your computer and go talk to your friends. This is a message board, not a coffee shop so stop whining. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
Not that I personally agree with this...and in fact I think this is rather mean to do...but in any case this is just for your amusement :p
One thing is for sure I'd definitely DO his daughters ;) ;) ;) |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
One thing is for sure I'd definitely DO his daughters ;) ;) ;) |
When I was in Hungary in the summer of 2002, I saw Laura Bush and one of Bush's daughters at a market in Budapest! I remember seeing throngs of people, cameras, security personnel etc... and I asked a security guy what was going on and he said "the first lady is right there.." and I saw Laura and on of Dubya's daughters right there. I WISH and I really wished for the rest of the day I had approached Dubya's daughter and asked her out for a drink! She was right there! What if I banged her! Imagine doing a female version of Dubya? Dubya's face on a female body? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :nervous: :nervous: :nervous:
Alright, all jokes aside, I agree with Diginut that the Bush bashing is one of the strangest phenomena of my lifetime. The sheer hatred, loathing, and hostility towards this guy is like nothing I've ever heard or seen directed toward a single person. The amount of hatred spewed by your average person towards Bush is akin to the type you might see directed towards people like Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Yasser Arafat, etc...but no, the venom for Bush is greater or at least on par with that of these type of despots and tyrants.
Diginut: Just in reading over your posts, I sense that you are playing devil's advocate more than anything. You realize that Bush bashing is a pastime, so you seek to denounce it as part of your campaign of "going against the grain." So stop being so gutless and admit that you love Bush and want to have bumsex with him.
:eek: Just kidding.
For those of you who are interested and could maybe take a minute to see the "other side of the coin." Please read this article. Yes, it's from one of those "right wing publications" the National Review. Now, if I (being another one of those right wing dissidents on TA) can watch Michael Moore, you guys can surely read this article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/scrip...00408130813.asp
If you're lazy, this paragraph summarizes it:
| quote: | | In short, the Left hates George W. Bush for who he is rather than what he does. Southern conservatism, evangelical Christianity, a black-and-white worldview, and a wealthy man's disdain for elite culture — none by itself earns hatred, of course, but each is a force multiplier of the other and so helps explain the evolution of disagreement into pathological venom. |
|
|
|
|
|
