Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
i think it is more an evolution in media then a hatred of Bush. I say this beacuse, the media pins every piece of negative news to the highest (in position) person it can deffendablly pin it to. For example, presidents have little to do with day to day economy, but both clinton and bush were blamed for economic pitfalls. So, when the media blames all ills on an individual people will naturally disaprove and eventually hate the individual. Additionally, i think if you bieleve this is something only happening to bush or to the right, then you are having a very selective memory Imagine the "Clinton Deragment syndrome" of the right if Hilary wins in 08. That being said, i do see this happening all too much, and i think it is directly correlaated with the demise of bipartisanship. Personally i bieleve that this entire issue relates to the fact that people seem to have forgotten that both political parties have a common goal, the betterment of america. Now, i have one more question for you, do you agree with the author of the blog you quoted when he says "They hate Bush because he stands between them and the implementation of their collectivist "utopian" vision. I have no time to waste on them, except to note that their intentions are deliberately and decidedly malevolent toward this country. They want it to fail at anything and everything it does and they openly cheer for the barbarians at the gate." beacuse i think from a different persons perception that could be labled as "leftist ferangment syndrome"evan
Darren,The main reason for the "Bush Hating" is Iraq.If you look at his poll numbers over time, you will see what I am talking about.http://www.pollkatz.homestead.comBeyond the polls, I can vouch for my own Bush hating. I can honestly say I didn't care that we had a chimp in the White House till he started an unrelated, unnecessary war over non-existant WMDs. You are just as bad. Name one thing that Senator Clinton has done as a U.S. Senator that you do not like. I'll hold my breath.
Why do you like Bush?
Leeroy, you are obviously in the throes. I don't pay much attention to "Senator" Clinton. I paid a lot of attention to "First Lady" Clinton and did not like what I saw--HillaryCare, for starters. And if you want to talk about the "chimp" in the White House, I may be compelled to discuss the lesbian who was the last First Lady.See? Gratuitous insults work both ways. Let's try to stay above that.Anonymous, there are plenty of people on the left, and to say that *all* subscribe to the section you quoted would be false. I honestly believe, though, that there are enough in the "Hate America First" crowd that the quote has some validity.
Why do I like the President? Because I agree with many of his policies and I value his integrity.
"And if you want to talk about the "chimp" in the White House, I may be compelled to discuss the lesbian who was the last First Lady."Even if true, I wouldn't find that offensive.
"And if you want to talk about the "chimp" in the White House, I may be compelled to discuss the lesbian who was the last First Lady."Even if true, I wouldn't find that offensive.That's because the only time the left is "offended" is when religion (specicifically Christianity) is mentioned anywhere as well as with anyone saying there is, or fighting against real evil in the world. - Anonymous 2
I am not offended by Christianity.I see the Evangelical movement as a dangerous cult, but not vanila Christianity.Where is Jim Jones when you need him?
Darren,This article dismisses the fact that there are plenty of perfectly rational reasons for our winter of discontent toward Mr. Bush. Furthermore, rather than dismiss Bush's opposition as "crazy," why don't we look at some of the real root cause for this irrational behavior. In my opinion, it all comes back to Iraq. The Bush supporters view the War in Iraq as simply a war of wills, the U.S. is winning, and that all that is necessary to achieve success in Iraq is to squash political opposition at home. This article is part of that framework, a feeble attempt to squash political opposition by simply dismissing all Bush-Haters as crazy."They are indistinguishable from the barbarians we are actively fighting, with the only difference being that they have different ideas about which group of thugs will be in charge of the "utopia". They prefer themselves--a more secularly-oriented set of thugs--to rule. "Ouch. Very ouch. "After 9/11, in many cases, even a mild dislike of "W" rapidly morphed into the ferocious Bush hatred we are now all familiar with."Umm…. Bush's popularity skyrocketed after 9/11. Dr. Sanity has gone crazy. She refuses to address the real causes for BDS (Iraq).As long as right wing extremists, like you Darren, equate political opposition with the real enemy (Osama Bin Laden), I have only one question left.Pistols or swords?
If you think *I* am a right-wing extremist, you are so far gone that I cannot help you--unless you think that anyone who supports the President is a right-wing extremist.I've taken several "where are you on the political spectrum" quizzes on the internet; these quizzes are as accurate as anything else when it comes to identifying a person's place in the left/right continuum. They all say the same thing--I'm just right of center. In fact, my favorite was the one that had a score of 0 as a Jesse Jackson liberal and a score of 40 as a Ronald Reagan conservative, and I scored 25. I believe Jack Kemp was a 20, but I don't recall for sure.Bottom line--as long as you think I'm an extremist, you're exemplifying BDS. Enjoy.
Not a right-wing extremist in terms of what kinds of policies you support, but rather in terms of how long you're willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Although it's not clear that the phrase "right-wing extremist" is the best one to use to describe such a person.
I can agree with Edward's position.
What timing. Look at this editorial I stumbled onto just now?Is Hillary a centrist? Let's look at her votes:http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkeating4512184nov14,0,4696852.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlinesThe rest I quote from the editorial above:Well, it certainly is hard to detect any centrism in her overall Senate voting record. Each year, for example, she has scored 95 percent with the left-wing Americans for Democratic Action.But let's focus on four key Senate votes that presented opportunities for Democrats to flash their moderate side. In October 2002, 29 Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution. Clinton was one of those 29, and while subsequently critical of how President George W. Bush has handled the war, she has not backed away from her vote. Score one for moderation.Next came a vote on banning partial-birth abortions in 2003. Clinton made a splash earlier this year by calling abortion a "sad, even tragic choice."Nonetheless, she could not bring herself to vote to stop the particularly horrific practice known as partial-birth abortion, although 17 of her fellow Democrats in the Senate did. Score one against moderation (and life).While her husband generally grasps the benefits of free trade - noting in his speech "trade lifts people out of poverty" - Sen. Clinton opposed the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement this past June. Ten Senate Democrats voted for it. Another blow against Hillary's moderation.Finally, there was the confirmation vote in September for John Roberts as U.S. Supreme Court chief justice. With Roberts' powerful intellect, obvious mastery of the law and sound temperament, only an ideologue could have voted against him. Twenty-two Democrats gave a thumbs-up for Roberts, including some big-name liberals such as Christopher Dodd (Conn.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.). Hillary Clinton voted against Roberts.One key vote and some occasional centrist talk do not make a moderate. Just as Bill Clinton the New Democrat was more about political posturing than policy reality, Hillary Clinton's move to the center lacks credibility. It is simply Clintonian.
Evan, I've thought about what you said about "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" and have concluded that I disagree. I don't recall seeing conservatives marching with effigies of Clinton, calling him a Nazi or a member of the KKK, or anything like that. Such demonizing seems to be the perview of the left.
thats missing the point of my post, i was saying that beacuse the media pins everything to the highest power they can, presidents will always become (in this poltical blog media) objects of hate. The point wasnt that clinton has been an object of intense hate, it was that if she was elected she would become one.
No, I got your point. I just don't accept it. I don't think we'll see conservatives marching in the street with her effigy, with signs linking her to Nazis or the KKK, or any of the other bile we see from the left on a weekly basis. Hence, there will be no "CDS" as there currently is "BDS".
Why would conservatives link a Democrat to right-wing extremists like the Nazis or the KKK? They're far more likely to link Democrats to left-wing extremists, like Communists. Plenty of conservative bloggers accuse people like John Kerry of being OBL sympathizers.
But, Edward, they aren't marching down the street doing these things, thinking it's perfectly acceptable and proper to do so. That's the difference.Look at their faces, see the venom and hatred, and tell me you see no difference. Honestly.
You excuse Bill O'Reilly for much nastier forms of hyperbole, and Bill isn't forced to use hyperbole by the fact that he's constrained to a sign that someone will look at for a few seconds at the most to try to get his point across.I mean, sure, conservatives don't call Kerry a terrorist sympathizer in rallies too often, but that's more a product of the fact that conservatives just don't have rallies at all very often than anything else.What's more, from what I've seen, the venom coming from liberals that I've seen is at least restricted to people in power that they view--rightly or wrongly--as causing great harm worldwide, while conservatives tend to spew their venom at everyone other than fellow conservatives. Case in point: the "psychiatry" article linked to in this post. Anyone who thinks Bush's policies are earth-shakingly stupid isn't right or at least within the bounds of reason, but has some psychiatric disorder? That Dr. Sanity feels comfortable diagnosing over the Internet? Come on. And of course there are the people on sites like Little Green Footballs and Free Republic who routinely call for the death of all Muslims.
"No, I got your point. I just don't accept it. I don't think we'll see conservatives marching in the street with her effigy, with signs linking her to Nazis or the KKK, or any of the other bile we see from the left on a weekly basis."No Darren.Their signs say "Homosexuality is a Sin"or "God Hates Democrats"Both actual signs I have seen less than a mile from where I live.
"Homosexuality is a sin" is a legitimate religious view. One need not be deranged to have that view. In fact, the Catholic Church holds that view. And most Catholics in this country vote for which political party?"God Hates Democrats" is a stupid saying no matter who says it. I doubt God hates anyone.I'll agree with Edward that you don't often see conservatives rallying for anything. Why is that? Some would say it's because they have jobs, and families to support :-) People can have strong feelings one way or the other for a candidate and not be deranged. The derangement comes when I see people comparing President Bush to Hitler or Stalin (my favorite is Bush with a swastika for the 's'). I doubt we'll see any conservatives walking down the street with "KKKlinton" signs, or with "AmeriKKKa" signs during the next Democrat president's tenure in office.That's the difference between BDS and merely not agreeing with the President's policies.
Hillary Rotten-Clinton talks an interesting game. But it's one thing to make some noise, and it's quite another to get something done.I challenge any commenter to please disclose any actual accomplishments that Senator Clinton has actually achieved.
""Homosexuality is a sin" is a legitimate religious view. One need not be deranged to have that view. In fact, the Catholic Church holds that view."Is that true? Considering the conduct of it's priests, I thought that the Catholic Church had a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy."And most Catholics in this country vote for which political party?"Before or after our country is 95% Latino?
I'll take the last couple elections, Leeroy.
I'll agree with Edward that you don't often see conservatives rallying for anything. Why is that? Some would say it's because they have jobs, and families to support :-)People who attend rallies usually at least have jobs and bills to pay, even if a disproportionate number of them don't have families to support on account of being in their late teens or early twenties. Anyway, is this the point you were trying to make? That conservatives don't hold rallies?People can have strong feelings one way or the other for a candidate and not be deranged. The derangement comes when I see people comparing President Bush to Hitler or Stalin (my favorite is Bush with a swastika for the 's').Comparisons to Stalin come more often from the right for obvious reasons. In any case, those signs are using hyperbole to make a point. Bill O'Reilly invited a terrorist attack on San Francisco, and you didn't seem to mind very much. Is inviting a terrorist attack not as bad as calling some politician a Nazi?I notice you didn't have anything to say about your friends on LGF and Free Republic who call for the death of all Muslims. I'll admit it's fairly rare, at least on LGF. What I meant by saying it's routine is that it doesn't cause a ruckus when it does happen. Do you not agree that conservatives do say this? Do you think it's acceptable for them to say this? Do you think it's bad for them to say it, but just not as bad as comparing Bush to some long dead tyrant?
I frequent LGF. I don't recall Charles Johnson, the owner of that site, ever calling for the death of all Muslims. I see him pointing out appeasement, wanting the death of our actual enemies (like Zarqawi and other murderers), etc. I don't read Free Republic so I won't comment. As for what commenters post at either site, that's not up to the owners of the site.Edward, if you want me to say there are extremists on the right, fine. There are. I don't know what you get out of that--it's patently obvious. However, the sheer quantity and "vocalness" of those on the left are immense and dwarf any such showing on the right. Yes, that's only an opinion, but it's *my* opinion I'm posting here.When you see the conservatives marching down the street with "AmeriKKKa" signs during a Democratic administration, let me know. Until then, I stand by my beliefs.
I guess I could make this a little more clear. This thread is about BUSH Derangement Syndrome. As I said, it's ok to harbor negative beliefs about someone or even some group. But when taken to the levels that the left has taken their attacks against this one man, the President, it strikes me as derangement.
"But when taken to the levels that the left has taken their attacks against this one man, the President, it strikes me as derangement."I'd have to agree with Darren.If Bush died tomorrow, there would be some people dancing in the streets.That is until the thought of President Cheney dawned on them.(Ugggh!)But at least we could party for one night!
And there's ANOTHER problem with the left. It would take them a full night to figure out that the Vice President would take over :-)And who would he appoint as *his* vice president? Hmm, I'm sure we could have fun with that one....
Post a Comment