NationStates Jolt Archive

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?

It's not that they practice doublethink, it's just that Bush haters either think he's trying to take over the world, or that he's an idiot. Only the very few, very stupid people think George Bush is a monumentally stupid evil genius.

Well, I think he's just an idiot.

It's not that they practice doublethink, it's just that Bush haters either think he's trying to take over the world, or that he's an idiot. Only the very few, very stupid people think George Bush is a monumentally stupid evil genius.
But what if one holds these beliefs simultaneously, or shifts between them with no rhyme or reason?

They aren't necessarily contradictory. Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world, but he is failing because he is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right. Not many people believe this, however.

How about this for an example to show how this 'doublethink' actually can seem to reflect reality, using Iraq as a model.
1- Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world - trying to set up a pro-US Govt. in Iraq.
2- Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right - does what it says on the tin.

Bush isn't particularly stupid or particularly diabolical. He's a somewhat incompetent leader who has allowed Congress too much control over the government, but not a true bad guy.

He seems to have had some of the worst political luck in a long time, however.

But what if one holds these beliefs simultaneously, or shifts between them with no rhyme or reason?
Then one is an idiot and practicing doublethink. As I said, only the very few, very stupid Bush haters do this.

Bush is an incompetent moron. The evil megalomaniac is Cheney.

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?

Not really, he is a stupid moron that allow his subordinants to control and manipulate him - basically those neo-conservatives within his inner circle having sway over policy decisions.

What if we believe Bush is a moron, and he's being used as a puppet by those close to him to take over the world? He can be an idiot, and still have ideas of global conquest. He just wouldn't be able to succeed without those close to him being smarter than he is (which doesn't take much).

If Bush wanted global conquest, why only invade one country?

What if we believe Bush is a moron, and he's being used as a puppet by those close to him to take over the world? He can be an idiot, and still have ideas of global conquest. He just wouldn't be able to succeed without those close to him being smarter than he is (which doesn't take much).
Yes, I think that puts it very nicely. While he might indeed have intentions of global conquest, he's far too retarded to achieve anything there, so he's easily being used by others for their own goals who make him believe that he would want it too.

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?
Here's what I think is more likely. George W. Bush, the individual, is an idiot, far as I can tell. I think part of the reason he sounds, in his speeches, like he's trying to explain his ideas to a group of third graders is because that's how they were explained to him by his staff.

But Bush is also a metonymy; he's the symbol for his administration, which is filled with evil fuckers who do want to take over the world (in a sense--remember PNAC?). So what happens is that some people say "Bush" when they really mean "Bush administration" or "Neo-cons" or "Cheney" or "Halliburton" or Republicans in general. But because they're not clearly delineating between Bush the individual and Bush the administration, there seems to be a contradiction in terms.

Bush isn't particularly stupid or particularly diabolical. He's a somewhat incompetent leader who has allowed Congress too much control over the government, but not a true bad guy.

He seems to have had some of the worst political luck in a long time, however.
I disagree. If anything, Congress has been the bitch to Bush's butch in this relationship. Pretty much whatever Bush has wanted, he's gotten, to the extent that Bush has yet to exercise the veto.

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?

There is no contradiction there.
Evil and stupidity are not mutually exclusive traits.
Being a megalomaniac and being stupid are not mutually exclusive traits.
Doing something in secret and doings something stupid are not mutually exclusive actions.

If Bush wanted global conquest, why only invade one country?

Afghanistan, Iraq, and now rattling sabres with Iran? That's three countries that border each other.

There is no contradiction there.
Evil and stupidity are not mutually exclusive traits.
Being a megalomaniac and being stupid are not mutually exclusive traits.
Doing something in secret and doings something stupid are not mutually exclusive actions.

Exactly, I was just about to say the same thing.

This is just a Bush supporter trying to be like "LOOK PEOPLE WHO DONT LIKE BUSH ARE MORONS! SO HE MUST BE GOOD! ALL HAIL!"

I think Bush out to conquer the world. I dont think he can speak worth a crap, but I dont think hes dumb

Afghanistan, Iraq, and now rattling sabres with Iran? That's three countries that border each other.
Plus, you don't have to invade to have control. You can exert other pressures that turn into a form of hegemony, which is actually what the PNACers want anyway--control without the responsibility of actually governing the areas under question.

Since when could an incompetent moron not be an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world?

This is just a Bush supporter trying to be like "LOOK PEOPLE WHO DONT LIKE BUSH ARE MORONS! SO HE MUST BE GOOD! ALL HAIL!"

Ah, shove it you n00b. Perhaps we might take you seriously if you spare the ad homenims and use a legitimate argument

If Bush wanted global conquest, why only invade one country?

I hope you realise that you can conqueror without actually invading.

Ah, shove it you n00b. Perhaps we might take you seriously if you spare the ad homenims and use a legitimate argument
Hypocrisy much?

Hypocrisy much?

:D

I disagree. If anything, Congress has been the bitch to Bush's butch in this relationship. Pretty much whatever Bush has wanted, he's gotten, to the extent that Bush has yet to exercise the veto.

Bush is a rubber stamp for the leadership in Congress; it seems like the Congressional Republicans propose something and he signs it regardless of its contents. Either way, it's not a good state of affairs.

i sometimes hope that bush is an evil genius with diabolical plan that will turn out for the best in the end

but in my heart i know he is an incompetant boob who is being led by evil men who believe that if they think it, it must be true.

well we all know he is the anti-christ:rolleyes:

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

Not really, he is a stupid moron that allow his subordinants to control and manipulate him - basically those neo-conservatives within his inner circle having sway over policy decisions.


Yep. Hes dangerous as an enabler.

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?


And why cant bush be an evil megalomaniac that cant do anything right while trying to secretly conquer the world

Just cause he is trying to conquer the world does not mean he is competent

Ah, shove it you n00b. Perhaps we might take you seriously if you spare the ad homenims and use a legitimate argument

Ad hominem before and after the fact. As said so eloquently earlier, "Hypocrisy much?"

The fact is, the only defense Bush supporters seem to have against legitimate criticism of Bush policies and his competence (or lack thereof,) is to tear down the critics, rather than adressing the criticism directly.

I think Bush is a not terribly intelligent man and the people for whom he is the stooge are evil megalomaniacs who want to take over the world.

So, no, I guess I don't fall into that contradiction.

The title for this thread should be:

"Bush haters actually think."

I thought there might actually be a point to this...

No, I always believed that Bush himself is an incompetent moron.

But I also believe that he does what a certain group of people tell him, without questioning it. He simply doesn't have the integrity or the intellectual capacity to stand up to the Neocons, the Corporate Leaders and so on.

No, I always believed that Bush himself is an incompetent moron.

But I also believe that he does what a certain group of people tell him, without questioning it. He simply doesn't have the integrity or the intellectual capacity to stand up to the Neocons, the Corporate Leaders and so on.
I think Trudeau said it very well today:
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/comics/db060402.gif

Bush is neither a genius nor a complete moron. He's an air baloon for Cheney and the others in his admin and their lobbyists. He's a great actor, poser populist, etc. He does the job of getting elected and making Americans like him. The people that surround him implement the agenda.

Bush is a tit.

However- he is only trying to do whats best for his country- which is why you vote for someone, Because he will improve YOUR country- not someone elses.

If he did go to Iraq for Oil (which i dont beleive) he did it for America so it could continue to have cheap oil.

He is not the stupidest megalomaniac in the world- he just the stupidest world leader-at the moment.

1. Cheney is secretly an evil megalomaniac, out to conquer the world
2. Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


*amended*

You don't have to be a genius to aspire world domination. That's why Bush is failing so miserably right now.

Eh...It's really more of a Pinky and the Brain thing.

http://bushcheneyworld.ytmnd.com

Bush is a tit.

He's not even good enough to be a nipple.

However- he is only trying to do whats best for his country- which is why you vote for someone, Because he will improve YOUR country- not someone elses.

He's only doing what's best for his handlers and their constituents - which is why I voted for someone else not that it made a difference what is generally suspected to be one of the biggest incidents of voting fraud in history. And he did not improve my country. If anything, he is taking it closer to Third World status with his fiscal laissez-faire liberalism and social hypocritical conservatism.

If he did go to Iraq for Oil (which i dont beleive) he did it for America so it could continue to have cheap oil.

If he did go to Iraq for Oil (which would just be icing on the cake after Avenging Daddy's Honor) he did it so that his handlers and their energy industry constituents could have control of a resource over OPEC. They'll still be more than happy to gouge the consumers for record profits, like Exxon as has as a prime example.

He is not the stupidest megalomaniac in the world- he just the stupidest world leader-at the moment.

The stupidest world leader easily led around by a cohort of megalomaniacs. Which is the most dangerous combination since alcohol and cards, an epileptic holding nitroglycerin, or Michael Jackson teaching kindergarten.

If he did go to Iraq for Oil (which would just be icing on the cake after Avenging Daddy's Honor) he did it so that his handlers and their energy industry constituents could have control of a resource over OPEC. They'll still be more than happy to gouge the consumers for record profits, like Exxon as has as a prime example.
Journalist Greg Palast noted in a column a couple of weeks back that Bush did go into Iraq for oil, but not so the US could get more, at least not in the short term. The effect of the Iraq invasion has been to slow worldwide oil production and therefore make that which is being pumped more valuable, thereby increasing profits for all his supporters in the energy sector. So the invasion was for oil, just not in the way most people expected it was.

Journalist Greg Palast noted in a column a couple of weeks back that Bush did go into Iraq for oil, but not so the US could get more, at least not in the short term. The effect of the Iraq invasion has been to slow worldwide oil production and therefore make that which is being pumped more valuable, thereby increasing profits for all his supporters in the energy sector. So the invasion was for oil, just not in the way most people expected it was.

oh come now, that is giving him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit. I might not have even used enough a's to express the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ness of your giving too much credit.

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?
Those are not mutually exclusive points - he can be an incompetent megalomaniac.

I think Bush is a moron who honestly believes he's doing the right things (and, depending on which right we're talking about, he is) to help people.

That just means he's dellusional (Nothing new for American wingnuts).

As to Cheyney, I'd say he's a crook, a liar, and a theif, but I think he's more concerned with his corporate leeches to care about domination.

I want to start off by saying, I'm not an american, so my oppinion doen't count.

I don't think Bush is a moron. Well maybe he is a little, but it has been over exagerated. In fact I belive this is a devious scheme!:eek:
tell me, what would you do if Carter started 3 wars in his term? (okay 2, but it's not over yet...)
what would you do if Reagan, Turn a 5 billion budget proficit into an equal deficit?
what would you do if Clinton sent the economy to hell?
that's right- you'd fire their asses (I belive that is called "impeachment"?), because they were competent men.
not Bush though. Started a war? well what do you want? he's a moron! Budget deficit? moron. economy problems? moron. fall in education quality? moron. and then you all go and VOTE FOR HIM!!! why? well some say it's church influence, but my theroy is becaue he is a retard (and you wouldn 't want to seem un-PC by not giving the job to a retrded guy, would you?;) )
now be good people and get a proper president, becaue I've got Russia 300 miles from here, just waiting to invade us again, as soon as there will be noone to stop them.
as for world domination, well I'd welcome a US invasion of this dump, as long as it's not a "shock and ave" campaign (besides it would be more effective to just bribe our generals with the money it takes to produce those missiles and bombs:) )

oh come now, that is giving him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit. I might not have even used enough a's to express the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ness of your giving too much credit.This is one of those cases when I meant Bush the administration instead of Bush the individual.

I
what would you do if Clinton sent the economy to hell?


Umm, Clinton kind of did if you want to blame him for the 2001 recession.

I don't because it's illogical and unfair, but the truth is that the recession's origins were during Clinton's last two years in office.

Eh...It's really more of a Pinky and the Brain thing.

http://bushcheneyworld.ytmnd.com
GNARF!

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?

As opposed to Bush who doesn't even practice think. :D

Yep. Hes dangerous as an enabler.

True, and I'm sure when the neo-cons 'marketed' their idea to him, it was more 'well, here is a great idea for the middle east, to bring peace, and freedom to the repressed masses' - something that would pull at anyones heart strings.

The problem isn't so much the noble idea of that, but thinking about the consequences of playing global geo-political engineering and whether the US is willing to sacrifice in the order of thousands of troops in favour of this noble goal.

So far, from what I've see in the US public, the US public doesn't want to share in this neo-con vision by the outcry over the number of troops killed in Iraq.

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?


Suppose it were doublethink.

So what?

The main thing is that the guy who if he had one braincell less would require daily watering, gets stopped from trying to secretely conquer the world in an incompetent fashion.

Obviously you've never seen a Bond movie if you don't think someone can be an evil megalomaniacal genius and still fail spectacularly.

Umm, Clinton kind of did if you want to blame him for the 2001 recession.

I don't because it's illogical and unfair, but the truth is that the recession's origins were during Clinton's last two years in office.

And Clinton inherited a more severe recession and it turned into a period of great prosperity. I'm not saying he was personally responsible, but if you're going to give him credit for one, you should give him credit for the other.

Bush, as of yet, has not governed during a period of prosperity, unless you are already rich. Bush's terms have been an unmitigated disaster for the middle class and below and the rich have been the benficiaries.

Remember, Bush's admin created an energy package that doled out subsidies to oil companies making RECORD PROFITS.

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world;
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


no, bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right behind whom hides a bunch of megalomiacs blatantly out to conquer the world.

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?
Just because Bush is too imcompetant to take over the world, doesn't mean he cannot try.

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?
:headbang: why are people practicing double think?
havent you ever met someone who although is an acadmic genius lacks any practical knowledge?? or somone who as thick as they are manage to get in to power (bush).
anyway it doesnt matter about bushes inteligence (or lack of it) many people make decisions for him with or without his knowledge. otherwise everytime a clerk needed to pee he'd have to write out a presidential consent form and wait 5-6 weeks for the reply telling him that it wasn't up for debate and asking him to wait 6 months for the 'should people go to the bathroom commitee to get together.

I believe the gist of both statements, but with considerably less exaggeration/hyperbole. That is, I think Bush is incompetent, yet lacking in morals (that is to say, my morals :) ). I don't think he's a truely evil man who wants to take over the world, nor do I think that he is as incapable as some would make him out to be.

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that either is true.

I'll admit, Bush isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer; in fact, to mix a metaphor here, in academic spheres he'd probably be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle. But the fact that he's a poor student doesn't stop him from being, at least in certain contexts, a very canny political operator, because one thing that he seems to be is an astute student of Southern-style politics, which briefly worked because of the circumstances of office he inherited. Allow me to elaborate.

One of the wierdest things you will find about American politics is that the truism that the richer you are, the more conservative you are is in fact a truism that only applies to a few regions of the country. In Alabama or Kansas, you can almost look at a person's income tax form and tell purely on that basis whether or not they vote and contribute (i.e. has influence with) to the Republican party. In Massachussetts or Minnesota, however, a rich man is just as likely as vote Democratic as Republican, and that is largely on the difference between views on wealth. The South, with a far more patriarchal and aristocratic political culture, as well as more for lack of a better term rabid anti-communist religious community, it plays well to play to the base, pass sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy, and make claims about strangling big government while handing out the pork. The North, however, has a much more Catholic and/or Episcopal religious base interested in the social gospel and a more socially-minded political culture, where these views don't work as well.

Now you may be asking: what the hell does any of this have to do with Bush? I would reply that it has everything to do with him, because it explains why he does the things he does. Simply put, his entire political training was in 1) a region that prizes government acting like a corrupt aristocracy while at the same time poo-pooing corrupt aristocracy, and 2) an era where you could be a corrupt aristocrat and get away with it, because the economy was so good that you could get away with graft while at the same time cutting taxes. This is in effect what he knows; it's all he knows. The problem, however, is that the circumstances have changed, and one thing Bush never learned is when to hold and when to fold. As such, he's betting the farm on a proverbial pair of twos when he knows damn well he needs a flush. He's not completely stupid, because he's clearly reacting to political realities, but at the same time, he's not megalomaniacal because he's merely acting in a way consistent with Southern politicos.

They aren't necessarily contradictory. Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world, but he is failing because he is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right. Not many people believe this, however.
More people believe this than they might ordinarily admit.

Bush isn't particularly stupid or particularly diabolical. He's a somewhat incompetent leader who has allowed Congress too much control over the government, but not a true bad guy.

He seems to have had some of the worst political luck in a long time, however.
That wasn't all luck, he's earned quite a bit of the dish he's gnawing on.

I think he's doing what he thinks is best for the country, (even if he gets soemthing out of it. He's only human people) and failling miserably. Or should that be failling very well because he's doiong a good job at not doing a good job? Damn grammer.

Bush isn't particularly stupid or particularly diabolical. He's a somewhat incompetent leader who has allowed Congress too much control over the government, but not a true bad guy.

He seems to have had some of the worst political luck in a long time, however.

You're not serious right?

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink.


I fail to see the contradiction. It is entirely possible for an individual to be a megalomanic who wants to conquer the world, while in reality being an incompetent moron who can't do anything right. This individual simply has a very high opinion of his or her self which is inconsistant with reality; this seems to me to be the textbook definition of "politician."

This individual simply has a very high opinion of his or her self which is inconsistant with reality; this seems to me to be the textbook definition of "politician."
politics:

A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
-
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
---
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

:D

politics:

A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
-
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
---
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

:D
Ambrose Bierce is (was) the man...

Ambrose Bierce is (was) the man...
Seconded. *bows*

You know, i had to stop in at the local Barnes & Noble to reprint that, since i made the hopeful-but-nontheless-ultimately-disappointing act of loaning that book to someone else. 8 months and passing, IIRC. :(
He has "republic" listed (at length), yet skips "democracy" .... <?>

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?

How about "Bush is an imcompetent, evil, megalomaniac, moron secretly out to conquer the world, and even that he can't do right"

I do not think your contradictory statements are all that contradictory at all. Supposing President Bush is out to conquer the world, he certainly is not going about it in a secrative way. He makes clear his stance on what he believes will spread freedom and democracy, regardless of how misguided his strategies may be. I would not put myself in the "militant anti-Bush" crowd; although I often wonder how he was re-elected, and I think there is room for criticism in his actions. In many ways, President Bush is not a moron, but he does have a knack for making himself look bad and has not (In my opinion) done a stellar job of surrounding himself with appropriate advisors.


P.S.: As for blaming President Bush for giving too much power to the Congress, he can hardly be blaimed for that. My understanding is that the US Constitution imposes its division of powers. My history tells me that it was the Presidents of the Great Depression and WWII that consolidated a lot of power to push through important legislation that was suffering from Congressional backlog, which may lead to this notion that Presidents are more powerful than they have been for the bulk of American history. My academic focus is almost solely on trade policy, though, so I am not sure about other areas.

Most Bush opponents, like me, think that Bush is an idiot manipulated by evil megalomiacs (the ones of the PNAC, the ones who really control the White House those days).

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?

Sorry, those two statements in no way controdict each other. Evil megalomaniacs tend to be stupid and destroy everything they touch (megalomania is a mental disorder after all).

On the topic of 1984 and Bush, he's definately guilty of duckspeak.

Seconded. *bows*

You know, i had to stop in at the local Barnes & Noble to reprint that, since i made the hopeful-but-nontheless-ultimately-disappointing act of loaning that book to someone else. 8 months and passing, IIRC. :(
He has "republic" listed (at length), yet skips "democracy" .... <?>
Well he does have politics:

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

The biggest contradiction I see is that Bush supporters can actually figure out how to use a computer.

Ah, shove it you n00b. Perhaps we might take you seriously if you spare the ad homenims and use a legitimate argumentHypocrisy much?Hey, was this meant to be as funny as it is? I mean, because calling someone a hypocrite is a form of ad hominem, right? Attacking the person for failing to do as he/she says, rather than attacking what he/she says?

(I realize there was neither the need nor the intent to attack Super-power's denunciation as such. I just think it's really funny that we have a string of essentially ad hominem posts criticizing each other for ad hominem posts.)

:D

Ah, shove it you n00b. Perhaps we might take you seriously if you spare the ad homenims and use a legitimate argument


Perhaps Id take you seriously if you didnt call me a n00b...

For christs sake, you called me a "n00b"...who the fuck does that?

Ok real arguements? Ok you got one. Just because your not the sharpest tool in the shed doesnt mean you cant be out to conquer the world, and this whole thread is logical falicey in and of itself. It assumes that just because we hate Bush (because hes an incompetent, self rightious fucktard) we practice double think. We call that a sweeping generalization.


And its cute how we say Im using logical faliceys and then we go and use the same one I used to discredit me. Besides, I never attacked you. THATS what makes it an ad homenin, I attacked your arguement and gave a reason for why I think its BS. There. No falicey.

For reference, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at once, as from 1984. And by the term 'Bush hater' I refer to the militant anti-Bush crowd.

A while ago I noticed a trend among Bush haters (not necessarily from NS, but from other areas): I have run into a sizeable number of them who believe both of these statements (or something along the lines of them):

Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right


Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink. But I want to know how many people here on NS have accidentally stumbled into this situation?

What makes you think an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conguer the world cannot be an incompetent moron?

I'm not saying either statement is correct or that either is typical of thinking of those critical of Bush, but you are wrong in assuming they contradict.

(If you had said "evil genius" vs. "incompetent moron," your statements would be contradictory.)

Well he does have politics:

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
You mean kinda like these links?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10693303&postcount=66

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10693308&postcount=67

?

1. Bush is an evil megalomaniac secretly out to conquer the world
2.Bush is an incompetent moron who can't do anything right

Now, as you can plainly see these two statements contradict each other, making the believer guilty of doublethink.

Enough people have already pointed out the flaw in your logic.

I'll just contribute by adding that it seems Republicans are always seeking to label their opposition "guilty" of something. :rolleyes:


To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that either is true...*big snip*

Well said! *gives cookie*

I think he's just extremely stupid sometimes. Some of the things he says.... Terrible.

Edit: Ohh, post count=1,234! Cool!