NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed while lurking that people on this forum often mention that political discussions, even if they are started about Kerry, tend to come back to Bush. I don't believe this is indicative of any unecessary excess in Bush-hating.

I believe it is because Bush is THAT BAD.

Those who wonder why Bush is constantly bashed on this forum say it as though they believe there should be an even amount of bashing going on on both sides. In reality, though it makes sense that if more people hate bush more, then there's going to be more Bush hate. Saying that there is too much Bush-bashing is like saying there's too much icecream-loving. Just because a few people don't like ice cream doesn't give them the right to be upset that everyone else does like ice cream.

My point is that Bush is not being bashed because "liberals" are unfair or stupid. He is simply being bashed because more people on the forums dislike him, plain and simple. There's no reason why the bashing and praise should be balanced (as some seem to want) if one side deserves much more bashing and much less praise.

And, to add to the Bush-bashing: if he's hated as much as the people who complain he is bashed too much imply, he must be doing SOMETHING wrong. Complaining that Bush is bashed too much doesn't mean that he shouldn't be bashed. It just means that you are bitter about being in the minority.

Also, it's impossible to criticize Kerry without also defending Bush. If you call Kerry a flip-flopper, and someone shows that Bush is also a flip-flopper based on the same criteria, Kerry doesn't look as bad anymore. That's why Kerry discussion will often turn to Bush discussions: people will try to show how Bush is no better, and often even worse, when judged on the same subject.

gasp!

Are you suggesting policitians are more or lest the same? ;)

People forget(Repubs and or conservatives) that if the shrub was a rock solid leader, it would not matter what moore, kerry, or move-on says.

The bashing happens because he makes it easy! ;)

Frankly, Bush is no where near perfect.... no way... but the thing is, John Kerry is a real politician... He hides his own opinions and pushes them aside in favor of the view of whatever minority group is currently cheering for him. I mean look at the guy's recent record... he voted for almost everything Bush did, he just denounced it all when he started to run for president.

Frankly, if John Kerry becomes president, I think he'll do a lot of what Bush did, just subtract the ambitions, the strength, the credibility, the honesty, the decisiveness, the trustworthyness, the character... John Kerry is just a figure occupying the role of "antibush." He's just playing whatever cards he needs to win, even if he doesn't have them.

As far as who I trust more, it's Bush.

Kerry is no idiot, that's for sure... but the way he treats his own opinions and his own faith in favor of pleasing minority groups is just saddening.

I do feel confidant that Bush will win though, simply because Conservatives are very much the Silent Majority. (I wish more conservatives would speak up, but a lot of minorities, especially liberal ones, impose social standards that allow only themselves to express their opinions... it's a bunch of crap.)

I do feel confidant that Bush will win though, simply because Conservatives are very much the Silent Majority. (I wish more conservatives would speak up, but a lot of minorities, especially liberal ones, impose social standards that allow only themselves to express their opinions... it's a bunch of crap.)

Yeah, I'm not exactly in love with Kerry either, though I favor him over Bush. But anyway, what are these social standards you mention in the above quote? I'm not sure what you mean, but that may just be a case of ignorance on my part.


Also, I was under the impression that the liberal and conservative population was about even, as evidenced by, for instance, the closeness of the last Presidential election. And that's with Nader averaging something like 3% of the popular vote in each state. In fact, taking the 2000 popular vote numbers, the liberals are a clear, although still narrow, majority. If the conservatives are the majority, then they must also be less likely to vote, and thus not proportionately as much of a factor in the election.

Yeah, I'm not exactly in love with Kerry either, though I favor him over Bush. But anyway, what are these social standards you mention in the above quote? I'm not sure what you mean, but that may just be a case of ignorance on my part.

Well for one.. freedom of speech is being applied in a slanted manner.

Political cartoon showing men, in sterotypical Shiite attire is decried as racist and hateful and the cartoonist is forced to withdraw, appologize and had his strip was withdrawn.

Political cartoon lampooning NSA Rice as Uncle Tom is ok because it's Rice.

Leonard Pitts writes editorial about the black community needing to find better role models than athelets and rappers, nothing bad said about it. (Pitts is a black-american)

White student at University of Oregon on the school newspaper editorial staff writes editorial basically saying the same thing is called racist, and fired for it.

It has been said before, and it's still apropo today... those screaming tolerance the loudest, are often the most intolerant.

Stupid social standards, like Political Correctness... We can't even address matters of Race without being called a racist... and profiling is outright wrong... such things, when drawn to extremes, make dangerous laws... for instance the one that fines airports an intolerable fee if they hold more than 2 middle-eastern men after security for secondary screening.

I dunno, I might just be off on a tangent, but Political Correctness is just one of my biggest pet peeves. The basic rule of thumb for PC is if it's a Liberal Viewpoint, you're welcome to share it, otherwise, keep your mouth shut you racist/homophobic/ignorant/idiot/whatever... It basically says that only liberals are entitled to free speech... and that's why they seem like such a majority, because their political correctness has forced all conservative viewpoints into silence.

Yeah, I'm not exactly in love with Kerry either, though I favor him over Bush. But anyway, what are these social standards you mention in the above quote? I'm not sure what you mean, but that may just be a case of ignorance on my part.


Also, I was under the impression that the liberal and conservative population was about even, as evidenced by, for instance, the closeness of the last Presidential election. And that's with Nader averaging something like 3% of the popular vote in each state. In fact, taking the 2000 popular vote numbers, the liberals are a clear, although still narrow, majority. If the conservatives are the majority, then they must also be less likely to vote, and thus not proportionately as much of a factor in the election. lol of course, we all hold to polls when they seem to be in our favor.

If the majority of the US is liberal, then why do most polls show confirm that 2/3 of americans are against Gay Marriage?

lol of course, we all hold to polls when they seem to be in our favor.

If the majority of the US is liberal, then why do most polls show confirm that 2/3 of americans are against Gay Marriage?

Maybe because being liberal is more complex than complete conformation to the rank and file opinions of the platform? One of the distinguishing factors about being a liberal is a high level of individual thought and nonconformism. Being against Gay marriage does not disqualify one as being a liberal.

Being a liberal, at it's most basic, is about change. Willingness to be flexible when factors change. Willingness to depart from the usual.

Those with a liberal outlook are usually hard to unite, since the spectrum of thought is wide, varied and filled with nuance. One liberal's priorities are usually very different from another's liberal priorities. That is the nature of liberalism.

And yet, Bush has managed to unite liberal thought to an unprecidented extent. The only logical explanation for this is because Bush has been arrogant and inept enough to anger the entire liberal spectrum.

History will view George W Bush as the most inept President of all time. I personally guarantee it. :mad:

History will view George W Bush as the most inept President of all time. I personally guarantee it. :mad:

Simply typed, but profoundly and deeply rooted in the complexity of my being ...
I'll bravely and un- "pc" and straight out as an anti-semite say
Well, I view G.W. Bush as a Puppet to Israel, with more horror and disdain than to know he is " the most inept president of all time" .


...I'll await my "verbal persecution..and maybe more"

Did you ever think that part of Bush's agenda in attacking Iraq is to create another buffer state in the middle east, therefore making Israel less important in the region as a "westernizing" nation? If (and this is a very unlikely "if") Iraq successfully becomes a modern, moderate western-style Democracy, Israel will find itself getting less and less support from America, and of course it's brutal actions (the whole region is brutal.) will be under a larger microscope.

Saying the U.S. is the puppet of Israel is laughable. A case could be made for the reverse. Politics is brutal, self-serving, opportunistic, mind-numbingly illogical at times, but it is NEVER as simple as your racist point of view would like to paint it.

History will view George W Bush as the most inept President of all time. I personally guarantee it.

Just goes to show what you know...

Where were you when Nixon was president??

Talk about inept!

DGNT explains this phenomenon quite well:

People on NS dont debate...they agree. Those that post anything positive about President Bush are wrong. Those that seek to add President to his name are evil, they would be Satan, or possibly some lesser demons of some sort, but religion is wrong as well. Those that capitalize President and Bush are also demons, possibly imps. They arent succubi though, becuase Clinton bought out Hell and they're all busy.