Hello. Why I hate George Bush.

[themoon]

*Originally posted by Monster104 *
**Let’s see…

Suppositions? Check.**

Such as?

Opinions? Check.

Yes. This is a debate board, is it not?

Bigotry? Check.

Such as?

Unsupported, innaccurate OP? Check.

Such as?

**Hmmm…and the sum of this is…AN UNFOUNDED RANT! Who woulda thunk it? **

I have given very specific reasons why I detest Bush and his policies:

1. He was given every opportunity to develop himself, but instead relied on his family and his money.

2. Pursues policies to benefit the powerful few, at the expense of the many, such as
   i) opposing environmental measures
   ii) pushing tax cuts that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor
   iii) pushing to unite Abrahamic religions with the US government
   iv) opposing restrictions on small arms trade

3. Lack of critical thinking skills, causing him to be easily controlled by the special interest groups who fund his campaigns.

etc.

[El_Zagna]

Since this is really just a Pit style rant masquerading as a Great Debate I am going to treat it as such.

In my opinion, the really evil people on this planet are not the GW Bushs or Bill Clintons but rather people like you, Mr. Moon, for whom hatred comes so easily. May I suggest that you spend a little less time examining the shortcomings of GW Bush and spend a lot more time working out your own issues.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by themoon *
It is difficult for me to imagine a worse president than W. **

What about that stupid-ass redneck who was just in the whitehouse? Just because he grew up poor that excuses eight years of his bullshit?

By the way, themoon, JFK and the rest of the Kennedy’s are the worst overprivlidged morons ever. What did JFK ever acomplish other than the Bay of Pigs and getting shot in the head?

[panzermanpanzerman]

Well, it’s not often I get to see a more pathetic, unfounded OP here. Geez…not one cite in the whole thing?

<<Of course, there are many worthless people like Bush…>>

Unfounded assumption. You have not laid any groundwork for why anyone else should believe that George Bush is a ‘worthless person.’

Indeed, the fact that he’s a beloved husband and father to two daughters, as well as a successful entrepeneur and a wildly successful politician proves your assumption resoundingly false.

<<His type of arrogance can only be seen in the super-privileged.>>

Another unfounded assertion. You didn’t bother to give anyone a lick of reasoning why anyone should agree with you that Bush is ‘arrogant,’ much less has a given ‘type’ of arrogance. Actually, I wasn’t aware that arrogance had any particular typology at all–much less that there is one ‘type’ of arrogance which can only be found in the super-privileged.

Further, you’re making an implicit claim that no one who is not superprivileged, as you put it, is ever arrogant in this way. But anyone who knows Yngwie Malmsteen, for example, knows that your premise is simply false.

<<Red flags should have gone up around the country when Bush dismissed the Kyoto protocol as “fatally flawed” while Gerhard Schroeder was on an airplane heading to the US to speak with him about the matter.>>

Why? The Senate had already voted that that Kyoto was fatally flawed by a vote of 98-0. Hard to imagine a more resounding ‘dismissal’ than that. Now, don’t go blaming Bush for stating the obvious when Al Gore didn’t have the political courage or intellectual honesty to do so.

<<He even made explicit that he cared more about the economy than the environment when he stated that he opposed the treaty because it would hurt the environment.>>

HUH???

<<He makes decisions based on what will please his contributors>>

Of course. That’s why they contribute to him. Or are you saying that Al Gore would NOT have made decisions that will please his contributors and key constituencies?

<<At no time does he engage deeply in any issue, and instead hovers at the periphery, being led by his handlers, and his pre-concieved notions.>>

Once again a ridiculous assertion, unsupported by a single citation or fact.

<<Bush is a functional illiterate>>

1.) People who aren’t functionally illiterate tend to try not to throw around terms when they haven’t a clue what they mean. Look into it.

2.) Facts. Cites. Substantiation. Look into those, too.

<<A man whose favorite political philosopher is “Christ” betrays that he has no ideas on political philosophy, and that he instead relies on his emotional reactions conditioned by his religious upbringing to make desisions.>>

I think the only thing betrayed by this statement is your own ignorance and bigotry.

Besides, if you’re going to accuse someone else of being functionally illiterate–if you’re going to make that an issue, it wouldn’t hurt to spell correctly.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
**

Originally posted by themoon *
** Every now and then, you will see this arrogance break through his thin veneer of humility, as when he uses a TV crew member’s skirt to clean his glasses as she isn’t looking.*

My favorite example of that was the “Who cares what you think?” incident…**

Your favorite example of what, Stoid, rumormongering? Did you even read the article you linked to at Snopes? Did you not see the Undetermined status, right up there at the top of the page?

Of course, everyone wants to know, “Did it happen?” Mr. Hangley says it did. President Bush obviously isn’t going to deign to confirm or deny the incident. We haven’t seen any accounts from other spectators or presidential staff members who claim to have overhead the remark, so for now it’s a toss-up: You believe Mr. Hangley, or you don’t.

Sadly, I’m not surprised that you would so willingly accept that such a thing occurred based on no more than hearsay…

It’s frightening how quickly and easily rational thought can be swept aside in order to justify one’s hatred for an individual.

[vanilla]

I had thought that might be a rumor.

[Stoid]

Of course I read it. Did you?

• Rumor:

1. A piece of ** unverified ** information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth.
2. Unverified information received from another; hearsay. *

The man to whom it happened verified it. I have no reason to believe he’s lying, do you? Do you know him to be a liar? Has he established a pattern of lying? Has anyone stepped up and said “This guy is full of it”?

The only reason Snopes is saying “undetermined” is because the man it’s about is in the Oval Office, and he didn’t confirm or deny it. But * the source * of the story confirms it.

Works for me.

stoid

[Hamish]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
The treaty WAS fatally flawed. It never stood a chance of ever being ratified, and had so many loopholes and exceptions that it was very difficult to implement.

It now stands no chance of being ratified, thanks to Bush. And a flawed agreement is better than none. My sense of things is that any renegotiation – if one had ever taken place – would have involved a serious attempt to water the agreement down.

Wow. That’s the most simplistic environmental statement I’ve read in a long time. Does ‘harming the environment’ ALWAYS have worse effects on the economy? If I build a new house on an empty lot, I’ve harmed the environment.

The simplistic view, i.e. the one most likely put forward in politics these days, is no. A realistic view might point out that in the long run – that is, beyond just the next fiscal year – a planet considerably warmed, a planet whose climate has changed to the point where life is no longer supportable, a planet with no clean air, is not exactly conducive to a healthy economy. I mean, the U.S. now faces a major economic crisis due to the collapse of two buildings, the resulting deaths, and the subsequent war. What would the collapse of the life-sustaining mechanisms of the Earth do to it?

And one last word: Bush? Illiterate? Why, I’m sure he reads quite well in both English and Mexican.

Oh, but I’m sure he was only joking :rolleyes:

[themoon]

*Originally posted by panzermanpanzerman *
**Well, it’s not often I get to see a more pathetic, unfounded OP here. Geez…not one cite in the whole thing?

<<Of course, there are many worthless people like Bush…>>

Unfounded assumption. You have not laid any groundwork for why anyone else should believe that George Bush is a ‘worthless person.’**

Well, that was what the whole post was about.

Indeed, the fact that he’s a beloved husband and father to two daughters, as well as a successful entrepeneur and a wildly successful politician proves your assumption resoundingly false.

Successful entrepeneur? LOL! If by “successful entrepeneur” you mean somebody who was set up in business by his family, and failed several businesses, then I guess I would agree with you.

And getting yerself a trophy wife, and raising two brats doesn’t make you a great man.

**<<His type of arrogance can only be seen in the super-privileged.>>

Another unfounded assertion. You didn’t bother to give anyone a lick of reasoning why anyone should agree with you that Bush is ‘arrogant,’ much less has a given ‘type’ of arrogance. Actually, I wasn’t aware that arrogance had any particular typology at all–much less that there is one ‘type’ of arrogance which can only be found in the super-privileged.**

His arrogance comes through in the way he behaves like he is above learning and thinking deeply. In fact, this is the subject of Mark Crispin Miller’s book The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder. Excellent book. Bush’s arrogance can only be seen in those who have never had to work for what they have received.

Further, you’re making an implicit claim that no one who is not superprivileged, as you put it, is ever arrogant in this way. But anyone who knows Yngwie Malmsteen, for example, knows that your premise is simply false.

Yngwie Malmsteen actually had to accomplish something on his own to get where he was. Thus, his arrogance had some justification. (Not that I think such arrogance is a good trait.) But Bush basically accomplished nothing, and still acts as if he is above the common man.

**<<Red flags should have gone up around the country when Bush dismissed the Kyoto protocol as “fatally flawed” while Gerhard Schroeder was on an airplane heading to the US to speak with him about the matter.>>

Why? The Senate had already voted that that Kyoto was fatally flawed by a vote of 98-0. Hard to imagine a more resounding ‘dismissal’ than that. Now, don’t go blaming Bush for stating the obvious when Al Gore didn’t have the political courage or intellectual honesty to do so.**

You aren’t really arguing this are you? You do realize that the senate vote was more about the process of the treaty, and the state it was in, than the treaty itself, don’t you? You aren’t trying to mislead here, are you?

But, I would think that a treaty ratified by 178 countries, with 1 country holding out, is “fatally flawed.”

And, you missed the point I was making about Bush’s dismissal of the treaty. He dismissed it before he understood it, and before he understood the science behind it.

**<<He even made explicit that he cared more about the economy than the environment when he stated that he opposed the treaty because it would hurt the environment.>>

HUH???**

He said he was against the treaty because it would hurt the US economy. Can’t get more clear than that!

**<<He makes decisions based on what will please his contributors>>

Of course. That’s why they contribute to him. Or are you saying that Al Gore would NOT have made decisions that will please his contributors and key constituencies?**

A president is supposed to act for the American people, not just the oil industries.

**<<At no time does he engage deeply in any issue, and instead hovers at the periphery, being led by his handlers, and his pre-concieved notions.>>

Once again a ridiculous assertion, unsupported by a single citation or fact.**

It is an observation. The Kyoto treaty is a perfect example. He made his decision from his stupid assumption that it would hurt the economy. He made this decision before consulting with any scientists on the issue, and before consulting with any other world leaders. He didn’t give the issue more than the most superficial consideration. Thus it has been with most of his decisions.

** <<Bush is a functional illiterate>>

1.) People who aren’t functionally illiterate tend to try not to throw around terms when they haven’t a clue what they mean. Look into it.**

By “functional illiterate” I mean somebody who is unable to read in order to obtain new ideas, and to examine these ideas. This Bush has shown himself incapable of doing. He has his pre-formed set of prejudices, and only seeks out information that bolsters these opinions. He is a shallow man who has lived on the surface of existence his entire life.

2.) Facts. Cites. Substantiation. Look into those, too.

OK

**<<A man whose favorite political philosopher is “Christ” betrays that he has no ideas on political philosophy, and that he instead relies on his emotional reactions conditioned by his religious upbringing to make desisions.>>

I think the only thing betrayed by this statement is your own ignorance and bigotry.**

Why is that? I am not saying that the ideas attributed to Jesus are bad. The issue there was whether or not Bush had any ideas on political philosophy. Clearly he did not.

Besides, if you’re going to accuse someone else of being functionally illiterate–if you’re going to make that an issue, it wouldn’t hurt to spell correctly.

What did I misspell? Well, I am very sorry if I misspelled a few words! This is an internet message board, and as such, a bit of latitude is expected with regard to spelling. I don’t think my spelling is that egregious. Is it?

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
**
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. **

Not exactly. I was one of those who used the word “bad” and it wasn’t about whether I agree with him or not, as I clearly stated. I disagreed with everything Ronald Reagan ever did, couldn’t stand him, but I never thought he was actually a bad human being. My assessments of “bad” and “good” aren’t about whether I agree with someone’s politics.

Furthermore I clearly stated that it was a *feeling * on my part, not a statement of fact. My opinion from what I’ve seen of him(which is, one would think, him putting his best foot forward, a truly scary thought). There is nothing about him that has ever come across to me as “good”. He strikes me as a cold, calculating, selfish, arrogant, insensitive, dishonest, self-absorbed, manipulative person with vanishingly small regard for anyone outside his immediate sphere. I cannot think of anything about him that has ever seemed at all positive, trustworthy or likable. I have never read or heard anyone who has been around him say anything about him that impressed me. At his very best moments, he seems thoroughly insincere. And that alone is something I detest in anyone. And at his most genuine moments (calling the journalist an asshole, the “who cares?” that I cited above), he comes across as everything unpleasant cited above.

Is that expansion enough? I can go on…

[Monster104]

Such as?

Here, let me refresh your memory.

Yes. This is a debate board, is it not?

Yes, and in debates, you use what are known as “CITES”. You know, FACTUAL INFORMATION. Your OPINION is NOT factual information.

Oh, and we happen to have a special forum for opinions. We also have a special forum for rants.

[Jackmannii]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by themoon *
**

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.**

Perhaps you should rethink that admiration, because JFK in the 1960 campaign did precisely what you are slamming Bush for - making false statements about lack of American military preparedness. One of JFK’s key issues was a supposed “missile gap” vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. This was a fantasy, since we were much more powerful in this respect than the Soviets. Politicians lie or exaggerate during campaigns. I don’t think you’ve proved Bush was worse than any other presidential candidates.

As I’ve noted previously here, I’m not a Bush fan. His environmental policies, including his position on arsenic levels in water supplies and the types of people he’s named to key posts, are poorer than those of his predecessor and need to be fought when they go against the public interest. But it’s foolish and counterproductive to claim that he’s a shallow puppet who doesn’t think deeply about anything and is willing to sacrifice the environment to his business cronies. Then it becomes all too easy for others to dismiss you as a name-caller without evidence, particularly when his supporters can point to positive environmental accomplishments by the Bush Administration. See? That’s called a cite. Please provide some of your own and we’ll have a better debate.

As to the idea that Al Gore has the biggest store of integrity in Washington - if true, that’s a horrible reflection on the moral status of our nation’s capital. I think I’ll wait for confirmation from some controlling legal authority.

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by Kalt *
**Sounds like another poor, minimum-wage earning democrat pissed off at everyone who has more money and material things than themselves.

**

While I think that the OP was ridiculous, I resent this remark. Some of us ARE poor, minimum wage-earning Democrats who are angry for various reasons. We’re not ALL jealous and pissed off for stupid reasons.

:rolleyes:

[SPOOFE]

Stoid…

Is that expansion enough?

Of course. You dislike him on a personal level. But look at the difference in language that you are using, and the language that TheMoon is using: You used phrases such as “My opinion…” and “He strikes me…” By stark contrast, TheMoon has constantly repeated judgments that, while they’re probably just his/her opinion, aren’t stated as such. One example that I consider to be the height of trolling…

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.

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.

[PhiloVance]

Stated by Stoid:
I disagreed with everything Ronald Reagan ever did,…

HUH??? You even hated Death Valley Days???
I loved that show
**And hows about Bedtime for Bonzo?
Sheesh :wally

[PhiloVance]

Preview is your friend
I did preview

substitute dislike for hated
Should read.

HUH??? You even disliked Death Valley Days???
gettin’ jes like themoon.

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
**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. **

Well, I admit the “trophy wife” thing kinda threw me, just because I’d hardly describe Laura Bush as a trophy wife. Perfectly average woman to my eye.

I think themoon just needs a little practice getting picked apart. He’ll learn the hard way, as I have, to choose his words with care.

And ** Monster104 **, I had occasion to say this just the other day: Great Debates is pretty much IMHO with cites. We give our cites, list our facts, then debate our opinions of what the facts mean. The discussions we have here in GD aren’t math and science. If they were, what would the debate be?

stoid

[Freedom]

Successful entrepeneur? LOL! If by “successful entrepeneur” you mean somebody who was set up in business by his family, and failed several businesses, then I guess I would agree with you.

I’m guessing that you have never run your own business. If you ever had, then you would be well aware that many succesful entrepeneurs have had rough times. Being succesful is sometimes more a matter of working through the failures rather than never failing.
http://www.biography.com/index.html

**"Colonel’’ Harlan Sanders **

“By 1939, with the invention of the pressure cooker, he had discovered a method for cooking chicken quickly. World War II and a new interstate led to a decline in customers and mounting debts required the sale of his restaurant in 1956.”

Donald Trump

"The Trump Organization required a massive infusion of loans to keep it from collapsing, a situation which raised questions as to whether the corporation could survive bankruptcy. Some observers saw Trump’s decline as symbolic of many of the business, economic, and social excesses that had arisen in the 1980s.

Yet, he climbed back from nearly $900 million in the red: "
Jimmy Carter

Returning to Plains, Carter decided to sell the family peanut business to pay its enormous debts.
http://consumer.pub.findlaw.com/money/bankruptcy/le21_9can.html?money/nj
Some successful people who had to declare bankruptcy:
Charles Goodyear, Mark Twain and PT Barnum.
So, it may be easy to look at people’s low points and take cheap pot shots at them, but you also have to contrast their failures to their successes. Say what you will about Bush, he has accomplished alot.

Could you please spell out exactly what you think he should have accomplished so that you would feel he “fullfilled” his promise?

[Monster104]

And Monster104 , I had occasion to say this just the other day: Great Debates is pretty much IMHO with cites. We give our cites, list our facts, then debate our opinions of what the facts mean. The discussions we have here in GD aren’t math and science. If they were, what would the debate be?

Hey Stoid, we’re in agreement. Opinions make up the core of debates. However, for it to be a debate instead of an opinion, themoon must include cites supporting his OP statements. He has not done so.

Which has been my point all along.

[milroyj]

*Originally posted by themoon *
**

*Originally posted by panzermanpanzerman *
**

** <<He even made explicit that he cared more about the economy than the environment when he stated that he opposed the treaty because it would hurt the environment.>>

HUH???**

He said he was against the treaty because it would hurt the US economy. Can’t get more clear than that!****

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???

** 2.) Facts. Cites. Substantiation. Look into those, too.**

OK

You say OK, but where are the cites? Let’s start with one for your claim that the President slandered Mr. Gore.

** Besides, if you’re going to accuse someone else of being functionally illiterate–if you’re going to make that an issue, it wouldn’t hurt to spell correctly. **

What did I misspell? Well, I am very sorry if I misspelled a few words! This is an internet message board, and as such, a bit of latitude is expected with regard to spelling.

Not if you want people to take you seriously.