Seems you are the one with the hyperbole problem, Yue. Myself, I cannot * imagine * Hitler, or Osama or David Duke, or space aliens that eat our heads becoming president. I’m just unimaginative that way.
Just because George isn’t ** your ** idea of the worst possible president, doesn’t mean it is not possible for him to be anyone else’s.
Can you come up with an example of someone you find so much worse that could actually be elected in the 21st century? The only counter examples offered the last time this came up were Hitler and Osama. Hell, if that’s the * only * examples of someone worse than Bush that anyone can manage to come up with, it kinda lends validity to our position, ya know?
Hate is a pretty strong word which, in my opinion, should be reserved for only the most scurrilous of beings. As Tiberius451 and others suggested, your reasons for hating this man seem awfully weak.
Your OP is really more of a rant than a GD, but I would like to tweak it a bit in hopes of making it a debatable issue by asking this: Do you think it serves the best interest of this country for so many people to hate the President, whoever it may be at the time? It’s one thing to disagree - and disagree strongly - with someone’s policies or philosophies but I am troubled by the kind of burning, bug-eyed hatred that I see from so many people towards the President.
In fact the basic attitude now seems to extend to any elected official. It is as though once a person is in an elected office, the basic rules of civility and etiquette no longer hold. I see this happening all the way down to people serving on small town school boards and city councils.
You can’t imagine someone like Hitler being elected President? What, we’re so superior to those stupid Germans that under the right circumstances we might not elect someone who would then unconstitutionally take power with public acclaim?
Of course, since I said that those examples were silly, you’re obviously just misrepresenting me to try and justify your statement, which was ridiculous. You didn’t say, Bush is the worst president who could have been elected. Themoon said, “It’s hard to imagine a worse president than Bush,” and you agreed.
In the portion of my post that you dishonestly snipped, I pointed out that we have HAD a worse president than Bush, in corrupt genocidal maniac Andrew Jackson. And I pointed out several things Bush has not done that a President might do even today to make him a terrible president.
At any rate, following a scene in the Pit where I overreacted to Nacho4Sara, I am adopting a new policy:
I try to be very tolerant on the board in general, but condescension bothers me a lot, as does editing and/or presenting my statement in a way that makes it look like I am saying something radically different.
From now on, if someone misrepresents me, quotes me sans context in order to justify that dishonesty, and then talks down to me about, I am simply going to cease any argument or debate with that person. Otherwise I lose my temper and say things I regret later. I will just walk away. Starting now.
Still waiting for that cite where the President slandered Mr. Gore. You see, slander has a specific legal definition, and is actionable in a court of law.
No no no! He said he can’t imagine Hitler being elected President. You see, Hitler wasn’t elected president of Germany, he was elected chancellor of Germany, and as we all know those two positions aren’t at all anything like one another, no no no no. :rolleyes:
Excellent OP, themoon. George and his handlers/sponsors are gleefully providing great opportunities for ruthless entrepreneurs through the old tricks of firing up public fear and patriotism…and we thought the “end of the Cold War” had dried up opportunities for opponents of civil liberties and proponents of military spending.
Welcome to SD. Your courage in articulating contrarian views should stimulate lots of interesting debates in GD.
Can’t hate him, simply can’t. Can hate OBL (may he simmer in bacon fat). No problem, he foments hate and murder in the name of God, if there is no other definition for vile blasphemy, that will suffice. Can hate Milosevic, for much the same reasons. Stalin, Hitler, Nixon, all leave slime trails through our world. Not GWB. Not enough there there, to rift on Gertie Stein.
I am pretty much his age, went to college about the same time. We all know what the issue of the day was, no need to review it. It tore at young minds and consciences.
And there were “frat rats”. Young men of breezy privilege and indifference, who simply did not concern themselves. While Clinton and Gore wrestled with thier consciences and made decisions, possibly right, possibly not, George did not. He didn’t have to. I remember seeing his ilk at my own place and time, and reacting with confusion rather than any intense dislike. How could they not be involved? How was it possible not to care?
As to Governor of Texas being a indication of governmental experience, that is hilarious, it is a chestnut. The Constitution of the State of Texas was designed by men with a fundamental distrust of government, as it oftimes interfered with bidness. Beyond an utterly draconion criminal “justice” system, Texas has always been a state of lacadaisical anarchy. The Governor is endowed with the power to declare a given month to be Pecan Festival Month. And thats about it. Oh, yeah, and sign death warrants. Anyone who can state with sincerity that they believe that no innocent person has been executed in Texas has no more probity than a bowl of mashed potatoes. Or doesn’t care. Because he doesn’t have to.
Do you rembember when he first burst into the scene? As the Republicans cast about helplessly for somebody to run for President, somebody to remove the memory of the shellacking they had recieved at the hand of Slick Willy. Remember when the name George W. Bush first came out, you said “Who?” and two days later he was the front-runner, with money pouring out of the sky into his coffers? Chance Gardener, as I live and breathe.
And now I am expected to believe that a crisis somehow will lift a man up and enoble him, take a mediocre man and suddenly make him a leader of men. Romantic hogwash! Lincoln was a man enobled by crisis, but he was a deep and thoughtful man to begin with. GWB is neither.
For all of that, there remains one incontrovertible fact: we are stuck with him. Period. We are headed into a time I truly fear will be a dreadful one for us, and, like it or not, we will have to find a way to pull together. Perhaps the rationalization that we support the President and not the man will suffice, I can’t come up with a better one. God help us, he is Our Leader. But I can’t hate him, any more than I could hate Reagan.
David Duke was elected to office, so surely a person can IMAGINE him being President. What about Pat Buchanan? Jesse Jackson? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? Geez, how about Richard Nixon? Are you really so massive a bigot that you can’t imagine a worse President than a guy who’s barely even had time to do anything, and who you at least must admit hasn’t totally screwed up a very difficult situation? Do you really mean Bush is a worse President than Pat Buchanan would be? You can’t be THAT close minded, can you?
I bet I could name half a dozen people who HAVE held the office who were worse. Andrew Jackson has already been cited, but Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan certainly were no great prizes. Nixon resigned in disgrace. Chester A. Arthur became President by accident and was a corrupt doofus. Harding was as crooked as a broken stick. How is Bush worse than those clowns?
Why do people keep insisting that I must be able to imagine things I have already stated I cannot? (Of course, I can imagine anything in the sense of having an imaginary friend, but that wasn’t the way I understood themoon to be using the word, and I doubt many other people did either.) Maybe YOU can imagine David Duke ** being elected president **, or Pat or Jerry or Jesse… * I cannot. * In the case of Duke, it hardly follows that in achieving ** an ** elected office he can now be assumed to be able to acheive ** any ** elected office.
Frankly, my imagination (or is it my wishful nature?) is so very limited that I am still dazed and reeling the GWB * himself * is actually occupying the Oval Office, because when I first became aware of him, I found the idea perfectly ridiculous and completely unimaginable.
Are you even capable of disagreeing with me without being insulting? Do you feel this enhances your argument? Because it doesn’t. If it has any effect at all, it would be to make your argument look weak, that you feel it needs a few personal slams to prop it up.
It would be so refreshing if you (and assorted others) tried debating just what I say, without making rude and insulting remarks about who you think I am. (Hint: “that is a bigoted view” OK, “You are a bigot” - not ok. “That is a stupid remark” ok, “You are a moron” not ok)
Sounds like another poor, minimum-wage earning democrat pissed off at everyone who has more money and material things than themselves.
There will always be people who have more - some who worked hard for it, and some who didn’t. No reason to hate either. It’s just sour grapes, nothing more. This entire OP sounds like old-fashioned sour grapes.
That’s what attracted me to this board. There seems to be a great energy here, lots of interesting discussions that (mostly) don’t degenerate into name-calling.
Excellent point. When Bush first started his campaign, I felt much as elucidator does, mostly indifference and contempt at such a mediocrity wanting to be president. I first heard one of my friends say he hated George Bush around last September, and it struck me as a bit over the top. I didn’t hate him. But, more and more, as he has pursued policies that favor his super-rich buds in the oil industry, and other ultra-favored groups, my contempt has grown to almost hate. OK, so maybe hate is too strong a word. I don’t hate him like I hate the truly evil, like bin Laden. And, I mostly used the word hate in response to the Scylla who said there is no good reason to hate Bush.
What I see in Bush is someone who is pursuing policies that will have a tremendously bad impact on the poor and the middle class, and the future of the planet. Bin Laden doesn’t have the power to destroy ANWR, or to kill the Kyoto Protocol, but Bush does. And, some of these policies have the potential to have a worse impact, in the long run, than the 9/11 attack. His dismissal of the small arms trafficking ban asked for by the UN, alone, will result in the deaths of many thousands of people. The continued pouring of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere could have disastrous consequences for the future of our planet, and the 178 other countries who signed up for Kyoto recognized this. The repeal of the estate tax will further concentrate power into the hands of the few. His attempted marriage of church and state will set a very negative precedent for the future of free thought. So, there are good reasons to hate what Bush is doing to our country, but it probably is too much to say I “hate” the man.
Well, that’s fine, as long as he would be honest about what he is doing. But, when he pushes for a trillion dollar tax cut, 40% of which will go to richest 1%, he calls it “tax relief for working people.”
That is true. Kyoto will not solve our problems. But, it is a step in the right direction, and does create a framework for future action. The US is the world’s biggest polluter, and SHOULD be at the forefront of environmental action. Yet, instead, we are shirking our responsibility utterly.
Please explain to me, then, what Jesus’ political philosophy is. The fact is that Jesus was not a political philosopher, and was not even a philosopher, if he existed at all. This comment by Bush was a cop-out, and served to pander to the Right wing conservative faction in the republican party.
Oh, I think Gore would be a MUCH better president. He is probably the most qualified candidate for president we have had in the last 50 years. Gore is a thoughtful man, who thinks about what he is saying, and can think for himself. He would not be likely to toss out words like “crusade” to describe our imminent military action in the Middle East.
As for what Bush has done in the last month, I really am not that impressed. He has done what he had to do. Really, there isn’t much he COULD have done differently, except to be more of a leader. This, Gore would have done much better, IMO.
Perhaps my condemnation of Bush came across as jealousy. But, I don’t think that is it.
I am not jealous of people in power, as long as they use their power wisely, and keep themselves acountable to the people.
Perhaps you mean you think I am jealous of Bush because of his privileged upbringing. I don’t think that’s it either. Many privileged people have gone on to do quite admirable things. JFK comes to mind. In a way I am jealous of him, but I also have a great admiration for what he was able to do with his life.
When I criticize Bush for his upbringing, it is not because he was privileged per se, but the fact that he didn’t make use of his privileges to better himself. He floated through his life partying and relying on his family to set him up in businesses and bail him out when he failed. Such a person does not deserve anybody’s respect.
It is interesting to compare what Bush did with his life with what Clinton did. Clinton grew up dirt poor, and worked very hard to make something of his life, making it to the top on his own talent and hard work. His is truly an American dream. It’s ironic that those on the Right who talk so much of the American Dream hate this man, who lived the American Dream, with so much intensity.
[ul]
[li] Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States. (The Texas Constitution, Article 4, Section 7)[/li][li] Present an annual budget to the legislature for tax income (Section 9)[/li][li] Fill all vacancies in State or district offices by appointment (Section 12)[/li][li] Sign bills into law (Section 14)[/li][li] Approve orders and resolutions of the legislature (Section 15)[/li][li] Serve as head of all executive departments and be the officer in charge of execution of the laws of the state (Article 4)[/li][li] Purchase land or the right to use land that is required by Texas for any type of public use (§ 2204.001, Acquisition of Land by State)[/li][li] Remit forfeitures of bail bonds (Art. 48.04.)[/li][li] Approve restoration of civil rights to convicted criminals (Art. 48.05.)[/li][li] Determine the procedure for hearing an election contest (§ 243.009.)[/li][/ul]
This is where I got tired of cutting and pasting. But a search on the Texas Statutes with “governor may” and “governor shall” produced thousands of hits - from which I gleaned the above short excerpt.
Would you care to retract your assertion that the position of governor of Texas permits only the “power to declare a given month to be Pecan Festival Month” and “sign death warrants”?
A few weeks ago, I would have been lynched for posting this quote, which clearly challenges the Leibnitzean assertion that America lives under the “Best of all Possible Administrations”.
That, in my opinion, is a very weak basis for claiming that Bush was “slandering” his opponent. For one thing, the integrity thing refers to Clinton. But most of all, it’s a friggin’ campaign motto, which have been used throughout America’s history (and prior to that, no doubt) to uplift one candidate above another. If “I’m bringing back integrity” is considered a slander, then… well… our politicians must be the most thin-skinned people on Earth.
And, like some others in this thread, I am noticing many, many vauge references on how Bush is bad. Please, expand on your words a bit more. A lot of your comments carry the schoolyard mentality… when you disagree with what someone does, you just call them a poop-head.