# Hello. Why I hate George Bush. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2001, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885 "2001-10-27T00:06:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/81 "2001-10-28T07:22:30Z")
This is gonna be my last pass at this. First of all, you are right about the thin reference to Hangley. The first time I found that snopes article was some weeks back, when I was researching this very thing to determine for myself whether it was believable or not. I ran into a number of articles about it, some of which had more detailed information about Hangley’s response to questions. When I dug up this link, I didn’t read it again, I just assumed that it had all the information I had read some weeks back. Mea culpa…but that may also partly explain why I find it more believable than you do. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Pssst…I’m not the one who brought out the law definitions; that was you. > \*\* I was defining the words you were using. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I do not presume they are lying, but I do not accept their word as gospel > \*\* Since no one can confirm it for you except George Bush, it looks like you are presuming Hangly to be a liar. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by \* \*\* > However, I do apologize if I was unclear; I phrased it that way specifically because I did **not** want to imply that you would say anything to discredit Bush. > > \*\* Apologies are always accepted. And now I think we can agree that we see this differently. We have each championed our view, and there you have it. Next! stoid ---
**Author:** ![themoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9dc877/32.png) [@themoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themoon)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/82 "2001-10-28T07:29:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > But, I would think that a treaty ratified by 178 countries, with 1 country holding out, is “fatally flawed.” > > With a sardonic smile playing about his lips, Doghouse Reilly cordially invites you to provide a cite backing up your assertion that even one **fifteenth** of that number have actually **ratified** the Kyoto protocol. And if you cannot do so (the sardonic smile suddenly disappearing), Doghouse Reilly politely asks that you admit that you were either deliberately misleading this board or (more likely) flaunting your own ignorance.\*\* _sigh_ This is so stupid. > [@](#): > > \*\*As an aside: Oh yes, some treaty is better than none. That idea sure carried the day at Versailles, after all. \*\* Yes, brilliant analogy. The two situations are _almost identical_! It _is_\* better to pour **less** greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Would you not agree? Therefore, a treaty which mandates such, would be better than nothing, no? And, as I have said before, the KP creates a framework for future action. This was, in fact, **THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT**! Nobody has EVER suggested that KP will solve our global warming problem. NOBODY. What it does is create a partnership between nations to work on the problem. Why do I have to point this out to you? Isn’t this bloody obvious? ---
**Author:** ![themoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9dc877/32.png) [@themoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themoon)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/83 "2001-10-28T07:34:19Z")
Sorry for the little outburst there, but the whole global warming thing gets me really angry. BTW, can anybody tell me why I am not able to edit my posts? Are moderators only able to do this? ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/84 "2001-10-28T07:41:32Z")
Hey themoon, Have ya found a cite for GWB slandering Mr. Gore (or a cite for anything else?) Didn’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/85 "2001-10-28T07:47:04Z")
Yes, only moderators can edit. Make preview your very best friend. stoid ---
**Author:** ![themoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9dc877/32.png) [@themoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themoon)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/86 "2001-10-28T07:47:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by milroyj \* > themoon \<\\> > > HUH??? > \<\\> > > Bush is functionally illiterate? You don’t have the reading comprehension skills to decipher your very own posts! > > Hint…the treaty would hurt the environment??? Doh! Yep. Missed that one! My bad. Right, I meant to say that Bush was opposed to the treaty because he thought it would harm the _economy_. Maybe it’s because “harm” and “environment” are such natural pairs when it comes to Dubya. > [@](#): > > You say OK, but where are the cites? Let’s start with one for your claim that the President slandered Mr. Gore. Well, obviously, in a presidential campaign you can’t come right out and say, “Gore is a liar.” But, Bush said as much with his snide “bring back integrity” comments. > [@](#): > > \<\\> > > Not if you want people to take you seriously. \*\* Is that right? So making an error by substituting “environment” for “economy” automatically strikes me off of your “people to take seriously” list, then, eh? As they say in Crawford, “yer a stickler!” ---
**Author:** ![themoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9dc877/32.png) [@themoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themoon)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/87 "2001-10-28T07:52:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > > > [@](#): > > > > And getting yerself a trophy wife, and raising two brats doesn’t make you a great man. > > With this comment (and similar other ones), it shows that TheMoon will disparage ANYTHING that Bush does, simply because Bush is of a different political ideal. In short, TheMoon is _really_ reaching and stretching the facts in order to justify his/her dislike of the man. Uh, no. Nice of you to completely disregard the context of the quote. Not the sign of somebody wishing to engage in a rational discussion. That was completely NOT the point. Somebody was claiming that Bush having a wife and two kids was some sort of sign of greatness. It was this claim I am disputing. > [@](#): > > \*\*I mean, if you dislike Bush personally, are you really going to accuse him of having a “trophy wife” and “raising two brats”? No. Those are not the comments of a rational person. \*\* Just to point out that Bush is hardly the ideal family man that his supporters like to paint him out to be. And, the exact same people who criticize Clinton for being a pox on “family values” will praise Bush for his wife and two kids. Again, you have to take the comments in the context they were written in. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/88 "2001-10-28T08:05:19Z")
Apologies for not having the patience to search google to find some decent cites from reputable media sources that have investigated where Bush got his money for his various business forays. I am reasonably sure he didn’t get it from delivering pizza’s at night while in college nor from saving what was left over from an entry level college grad job. That said, would like some reputable cites so I’m not blowing wind. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/89 "2001-10-28T08:14:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by themoon \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly \* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > But, I would think that a treaty ratified by 178 countries, with 1 country holding out, is “fatally flawed.” > > > > With a sardonic smile playing about his lips, Doghouse Reilly cordially invites you to provide a cite backing up your assertion that even one **fifteenth** of that number have actually **ratified** the Kyoto protocol. And if you cannot do so (the sardonic smile suddenly disappearing), Doghouse Reilly politely asks that you admit that you were either deliberately misleading this board or (more likely) flaunting your own ignorance.\*\* > > _sigh_ > > This is so stupid. Well actually, that’s a pretty accurate summary of my feelings on this subject. From a slightly different perspective, though, I suspect. It’s a lot easier to dismiss a subject as “stupid” than to admit that you were wrong. And if it’s not worth arguing about, why did you bring it up in the first place? You don’t consider it noteworthy that, except for Upper Elbonia and a few of its South Pacific allies, **nobody actually ratified** this “treaty” that was supposedly so vital to the survival of the planet? Or do you not see the difference between a feel-good photo op and actual implementation of an agreement? > [@](#): > > It _is_ better to pour **less** greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Would you not agree? Therefore, a treaty which mandates such, would be better than nothing, no? You could as easily tout a treaty that would ban all combustible engines, and would thereby reduced greenhouse gas emissions to zero; would that be a good thing, despite the little side effect of decimating the global economy? Well, that’s a bit of a straw man, but all the same, why is it so hard to accept the idea of a cost-benefit analysis? If a “treaty” takes too much of an economic toll for the sake of too little of an environmental benefit, why not scrap it? > [@](#): > > And, as I have said before, the KP creates a framework for future action. This was, in fact, **THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT**! Nobody has EVER suggested that KP will solve our global warming problem. NOBODY. What it does is create a partnership between nations to work on the problem. > > Why do I have to point this out to you? Isn’t this bloody obvious? It will be an essential part of your education, young man, to discover that the things you feel so impassioned about may not be at all obvious, let alone “bloody obvious”, to other rational human beings. And as for your “framework of future action” and “partnership between nations”, I humbly submit that carries all the value of bucket of warm piss. If you really want to stymie any and all efforts to improve environmental conditions, go ahead and throw it into an endless UN committee. You won’t even be able to get past the argument over whether Zionism equals pollution. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/90 "2001-10-28T08:27:19Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You say OK, but where are the cites? Let’s start with one for your claim that the President slandered Mr. Gore. > > Well, obviously, in a presidential campaign you can’t come right out and say, “Gore is a liar.” But, Bush said as much with his snide “bring back integrity” comments. And how is this slander? After “preview”, the name of your second new bestest friend is “[dictionary](http://www.m-w.com)”: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: slander > > Function: noun > > Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Old French esclandre, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense – more at SCANDAL > > Date: 14th century > > 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation > > 2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person How did a promise to bring integrity back to the White House translate into a “false and defamatory oral statement”? He didn’t _say_ anything about Mr. Gore. If voters looked at Mr. Gore (and his master) and saw the very antithesis of integrity, surely that was their problem and not Mr. Bush’s? ---
**Author:** ![panzermanpanzerman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9bcb4/32.png) [@panzermanpanzerman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panzermanpanzerman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/91 "2001-10-28T15:51:23Z")
## quote: ## But, I would think that a treaty ratified by 178 countries, with 1 country holding out, is “fatally flawed.” Criminy! How on earth did I miss that one? moon, you just demonstrated your ignorance of the issue beyond hope of redemption. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/92 "2001-10-28T17:24:40Z")
themoon wrote: > [@](#): > > Nobody has EVER suggested that KP [the Kyoto Protocol] will solve our global warming problem. However, many have suggested that we don’t actually **have** a global warming “problem.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/93 "2001-10-28T17:54:13Z")
**Be It Known:** His Sublime Majesty, the Emperor Elucidator [sub]hey, if Scylla can be a pirate, I can be Emperor[/sub] doth issue the following Edict unto the Teeming Ones: **Whereas** it is self-evident that all SDMB posters have internet access and are equipped with a browser; and, **Whereas** all manner of Dictionaries abound on said internet; and, **Whereas** it roils and disturbs the sublime tranquility of the Emperor and his more sensible Subjects to have definitions posted for words already quite within the vocabulary of the meanest intelligence: From this day forward, posting excerpts from a dictionary on the SDMB is _verboten_, forbidden, illegal, illegitimate, and _right out!_. So let it be written, so let it be done! To hear is to obey! ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/94 "2001-10-28T18:13:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > > From this day forward, posting excerpts from a dictionary on the SDMB is _verboten_, forbidden, illegal, illegitimate, and _right out!_. > > So let it be written, so let it be done! To hear is to obey! \*\* no1 (n) adv. 1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement: No, I’m not going. No, you’re wrong. 2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more. 3. Not: whether or no. 😃 [sub] especially since so many people use words \* without \* employing the dictionary to be certain of the meaning[/sub] Sorry to be such a defiant subject, Emp, but you know I love you anyway. stoid ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/95 "2001-10-28T20:59:59Z")
[I’d](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=I'd) [think](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=think) [it](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=it) [would](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=would) [be](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=be) [sufficient](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sufficient) [to](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=to) [simply](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=simply) [post](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=post) [a](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=a) [reference](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=reference) [to](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=to) [an](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=an) [online](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=online) [dictionary](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dictionary), [don’t](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=don't) [you](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=you) [think](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=think)? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/96 "2001-10-28T21:06:19Z")
I can’t believe you did that! ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/97 "2001-10-28T21:52:17Z")
There’s a more definitive dictionary to be found [HERE.](http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.html) ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/98 "2001-10-28T22:18:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by themoon \* > **IMO, there hasn’t been nearly enough Bush bashing since 9/11.** That’s because the Democrats believe that there are things more important than partisan politics. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Clinton was in office when the events of 9/11 took place, the GOP would be recycling their “we can support our troops without supporting the president” mantra. As for Dubya himself… I wouldn’t say that I _hate_ the guy, at least on a level where I wish he was dead. I do have nothing but utter contempt for him, however, based on his well-known ignorance and his indifference in changing that (being dumb is bad; _enjoying_ being dumb is worse). Everything I’ve seen indicates that he’s gotten through in life solely because of the privileges of his family name – if he had to live as an “ordinary Joe,” I imagine he’d be living in a trailer camp collecting unemployment while getting boozed up on Budweiser every night. Still, the way I see it, the nation (barely) survived eight years with Ronald Reagan, so we can probably survive George W. Bush. The important thing in my mind is to make sure that safeguards are in place so the GOP doesn’t hijack the 2004 election results – but if anyone knows anything about breaking the rules, it’d be the Republicans… ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/99 "2001-10-28T22:30:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > **That’s because the Democrats believe that there are things more important than partisan politics. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Clinton was in office when the events of 9/11 took place, the GOP would be recycling their “we can support our troops without supporting the president” mantra.** How are you so certain of this? And please don’t tell me that so-and-so used the line after the missile attack on the Sudan or some such thing; it’s pretty clear that 9/11 has caused a historically unusual de-emphasis on partisanship, and the reaction to the latest cruise missile attack is not comparable to reactions to 9/11. But if you have some rationale for it, it’d be interesting to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885/100 "2001-10-28T22:47:47Z")
**rjung** > [@](#): > > That’s because the Democrats believe that there are things more important than partisan politics. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Clinton was in office when the events of 9/11 took place, the GOP would be recycling their “we can support our troops without supporting the president” mantra. he…he…he… Talk about a world record time for proving yourself wrong. 🙂 “That’s because the Democrats believe that there are things more important than partisan politics. **Insert partisan slam here.** ” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hello-why-i-hate-george-bush/89885.md?page=6)