Monday, July 21, 2008

Bush Haters

If the Olympics were coming to Iraq this year instead of China, the group of people know gleefully as Bush haters would probably want it included in competition.

Now in talking about this topic, this has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement on any particular policy. In reality, it's more of a dip into the soul of the Bush hater. And I'm not the one who labels them as such. This is a self-assigned label adopted proudly on the left.

Two other points: Back in the day, there were Clinton haters, although I don't think they were as proud and virulent as today's Bush haters. I should know, because I can say (not with pride, though) that I was one. Also, to clarify, Bush (with a capital B) haters have an issue with the current President. Any other connotation (without the capital B) would certainly ruin my reputation as (in my warped perception) a family-friendly blog (so don't go there, you pervs).

Now, to the Haters out there, I ask the question: Why do you hate Bush?

I can see where the election in 2000 rubbed you the wrong way, but it's not the first time the popular vote has not prevailed and the issue had to be ironed out. As to his intellect, it doesn't begin to near mine (as no one does), yet you have to have some intelligence, some charisma, and some ability to lead to make it into the White House (meaning McCain is doomed). After 9/11, some of the rules for our relations with the world changed, and while Bush has done some things incorrectly, he's not trying to destroy us (I wouldn't even say Carter was trying to destroy us). As for the war, questions are fine, but this idea that his goal is wholly selfish and he has no hesitation to kill soldiers for his benefit is nuts. And as for policies, it is possible to disagree and not think someone is the personification of evil.

Here's my point. There are people I disagree with. There are people I generally can't stand (Teddy Kennedy jumps to mind here). But I keep my list of people I hate small, and only include political figures that intentionally commit evil acts. And I try to raise the bar when I look at political figures, because politics tends to draw some of the worst traits out in humanity. I recognize that many people get into politics for the right reasons, but the process perverts them in the end. And others see opportunity, but they certainly don't want to be hated when they go in.

And while I will admit there are things about Bush (or any President for that matter) that piss people off, I don't understand why the haters invest in despising Bush, so much so that they can't look at policy objectively, seeing only scheming and manipulation to feed his evil empire.

In short, perhaps you haters should look into your soul and your faith and see if you gain anything by ascribing your dislike for the Bush policies as hate for the man. I've written before of the destructive power of unreasoned hatred and anger. Are you a person who is enslaved by this poison of the soul? If so, then you have my pity, and should look inward before coming back to the politics of the day.

19 comments:

Toad734 said...

Umm, so did you get anything for hating Clinton? How did that better your life?

Now, you hated Clinton because he took all the policies conservatives despise, except free trade, and used those to create one of the strongest economies in American history. He basically proved that liberal policies create economic opportunity, a strong dollar, balanced budget, etc. Bush has shown that conservative policies have just the opposite affect. But Bush loves Jesus and Clinton loved BJs. Apparently bombing Iraqi children for the price of oil is a family value, as is hating gay people but putting families to work isn't a family value and so Clinton was an easy target for the jealous religious conservative right.

Since, Bush is a bible thumping, incompetent, liar; it makes him an easy target for the left. Every thing he has touched has gone to shit and he steal has these cult drone followers (mikesamerica) who thinks he shits lumps of gold. He has had more felons in his administration than any president before him. He has had more unqualified people from places like Regent and Liberty University in important positions than any other president before him. Its not just loony liberals who disagree with Bush, its McClellan, Powell, You, and a whole list of other people who think Bush is a terrible President.

In a time of job growth, economic growth a strong dollar, a balanced budget, the right hated Clinton, and now that we have none of those things how can you with a straight face ask why someone would hate Bush? At least we haven't gone to the lengths the right did in impeaching Clinton. Who deserved impeachment more? Bush or Clinton? Give me a break.

I would also like to point out that no, it wasn't the first time someone won the popular vote and lost but it is the first time that the Governor of the lone deciding state happened to be Bush's brother, and the Florida secretary of state happened to be the head of the Bush Florida campaign and she decided to throw out votes from black people and prohibit black people form voting. You don't see anything wrong with that picture? That election was stolen, plain and simple. Only someone with the types of connections Bush had could pull that off. If that happened to Obama he would lose.

Patrick M said...

Yammer, yammer, yammer, Toad. You love to intentionally misstate everything I say, don't you?

The anger with Clinton did nothing to help me. In fact, that entire period of my life, up to 2002, was an angry period. It's only when I let go of that anger that life became better. Then I made some mistakes that an angry me would have probably shot someone over, but that's another story.

Now I separated policies from the man because I generally have agreed with Bush and disagreed with Clinton. And on occasions, Clinton did the right thing and Bush did the wrong thing. But, in retrospect, I can't say Clinton was a bad president, and I suspect Bush will be vindicated in history. Clinton has some reprehensible character flaws and an unhesitating ability to parse words (the reason he was impeached, by the way), but the country did not suffer under him. And Bush has faced greater challenges and a government that has been growing consistently since 1940 and insanely since 2000 (my biggest issue with Bush).

Of course I'll point out that 6 years of the GOP winning a few victories in Congress during the Clinton years did help.

But that doesn't matter to you, as you can only seem to see Bush as the caricature religious right zealous oilman who lies about everything, steals elections and sends soldiers to shoot babies so he can feed oil to his rich buddies and feed children to Dick Cheney, who likes them tender and cooked medium rare.

Even in my most hateful days toward Clinton, I at least had the sense not to be so ridiculous.

Toad734 said...

"See Bush as the caricature religious right zealous oilman who lies about everything, steals elections and sends soldiers to shoot babies so he can feed oil to his rich buddies and feed children to Dick Cheney, who likes them tender and cooked medium rare."

Actually I think he likes them rare.

And if you had to explain the Bush presidency in the simplest terms, that may be the way to do it. Are you saying he isn't an oil man, didn't steal an election (possibly two), didn't send soldiers into harms way and hiring his Christian soldier buddies Blackwater to shoot civilians who got in their way and that rich oil companies and every other company Cheney and Bush has ever had connections to haven’t seen massive if not record profits?

And you don't see a caricature of Clinton as a big walking hard on handing out free checks to black people who don't work?


And no, history rarely regards a president as a total failure but I think this one will change that and he most certainly won't go down with Washington,Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt,Kennedy, etc.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

First of all, a bit of background: I've been committed to the left (YPSL, SPUSA and so on) since the early 80's, before I was even old enough to vote. Being consistently and thoroughly left in a country that's been ruled by the right for most of my life isn't the easiest thing in the world.

The problem with W in my eyes was that there were so many problems and questions that I never felt were answered satisfactorily. One time, you can give the benefit of the doubt. Twice, maybe the person's just a big dummy. But over and over again things happened and I had to say why or what or WTF. After a while it became too many things and just like you'd do with a kid you start either random drug testing or considering sending them off to some delinquents boot camp because you know that something's very wrong. Except you can't do that, because he's the President.

There are still unanswered questions I have about 9/11. I still don't understand this war. I fail to comprehend so much of the reasoning behind what this man has done. When I was a kid, our house wasn't a democracy: it was a Dictatorship of Daddy and what he said went no matter whether it was right, wrong, or if anyone liked it. This isn't a house full of kids. This is a country, and actually, it's an international issue. You can't just do things just because you feel like it.

There's just too many problems, one after another. Little by little things are chipped away at and dismantled. The reasons that are given for actions turn out to be lies, and for many things no reason is given at all. There's too much hidden, and too many coincidences for everything to be jim dandy fine.

It's just wrong, and I mean that in the sense that it all feels wrong, it all plays wrong. It's just not right.

Thus sayeth the nutbat.

Patrick M said...

Toad, you don't get laid nearly enough, do you (as though I should talk)?

I won't justify your conspiracy theory rants with a response. Caricatures are fun when making jokes, but when you take them to the extreme by using them in serious discussion, it loses all fun and meaning.

My caricature of Clinton is a walking hardon, with the instinct to parse words while reading Green Eggs and Ham. The truth is not so black and white.

You still miss the point though. It's neither in disagreement, nor is it in making fun of the Prez. It's the blind hatred that you can't seem to turn off.

I say Bush, you say lying, murdering oilman. I say Rush, you say whoring drug addict. I say Cheney, you foam at the mouth from the EEEEEVIL.

The problem is you can't discuss things without reverting to either their past or your low opinion of the people involved, rather than looking at it with biased, but fairly judging eyes.

And before you start another sentence with "Are you saying he isn't...," it doesn't matter so much because too often it's not a relevant point to the conversation.

Thus, we arrive back at the question: Why do you hate rather than just disagree?

Mike's America said...

"Yammer, yammer, yammer, Toad. You love to intentionally misstate everything I say, don't you?"

Don't tell me you just figured that out?

The difference between the Clinton haters and the Bush haters is quantity and quality. And the worst of the Bush haters have developed personality disorders that never afflicted the Clinton haters.

And since we're talking about haters, why don't we ask Toadbat why he hates Christians so much?

Patrick M said...

Saty: I wouldn't label you a nutbat, because you can lay out a reasoned approach as to how you got to the point you are at. It reminds me, in some way, of my journey through the laughs and oral that was the Clinton administration. However, with perspective, I can see that I really let the actions of one man really drive a large portion of my anger.

I certainly hope that your questions will be answered after Bush is out of office. And even better, you'll be able to achieve the same perspective.

So let me ask you why you choose to claim the position of "hating" rather than another, less inflammatory term?

Patrick M said...

Mike: I think I have a little better measure of what's in Toad's heart then you do. Why do you think I go for topics such as these?

I'll answer before you come up with a more entertaining one.

As you can see, I've gotten reasoned responses, as well as rants. And I've learned that there are sometimes sane people behind even some of the craziest ranting. But many of us (not naming names) tend to respond to honest questions with either preprogrammed, or worse, cut-and-paste political answers.

We will still disagree on issues, but if we learn to listen and not piss in each other's Cheerios, then maybe the conversation can produce results.

As for Toad's general hatage, I figger it's the intemperance of youth (except we're the same age). Maybe after he has a family, he'll learn how to mellow. I did.

Toad734 said...

I get laid plenty.

Most things I say are in a somewhat joking or sarcastic manner. If we were speaking and having this discussion you would realize that. Again, I wasn't born hating a man named George Bush, or Rush Limbaugh; I learned that these people were hypocrites who were good at saying two word phrases which made the down home folks feel like they were part of something. I also realized that what they were saying was wrong. Their hypocrisies, lies, and misinformation came first. It’s not a blind hatred; it’s a very enlightened hatred. And I save the hatred for the worse. I probably agree with Bill Oreilly 30% of the time, I agree with Bush maybe 2% of the time and although I haven't actually listened to any of his radio broadcasts in a few years, everything I hear from Rush is complete bullshit, hatred and fear. I’ve given all these people a chance from the beginning and it’s their actions which spawn my response to them. Rush pumps that shit into you red staters and makes you think that the only news is the news of what atrocities the 2% of radical Muslims are committing and that all Jews and Americans are 100% innocent and that the Democrats are traitors. These are all tag lines, he has nothing to back it up and even if he does, its simple logic that could be undone by my youngest dog.

And if he says "family values" one more time I will personally drive to Florida and shove that gold mic up his ass for him; hopefully he will be doped up enough to enjoy it. Fact is Rush is the last guy who should be talking about:
A. Military Service
B. Family Values
C. Crime and Punishment
D. Drugs

Or virtually anything else, Although he does excel at divorce so maybe he can recommend a good divorce lawyer but other than that, what credentials does he have and what moral high ground does he hold over the rest of us to speak on such things?

Mike,

You very well know I don't hate Christians. I think Christianity makes about as much sense you think Islam does. Any moron who believes in magic underwear, magic beads, magic crosses or a magic grilled cheese with the virgin Mary waving to them should be under 24 hour supervision.

I also know that when Christianity was at the same age as Islam is now, they were doing more than setting IEDs in front of humvees; they were wiping out villages converting the world over to Christianity at the threat of the sword. Christianity has more blood on its hands than would the 72 islamic virgins if all their cherries got popped at the same time. Look at both crusades, witch hunts / Malleus Maleficarum, The Inquisition, Bosnia, etc.

So what I hate is when Christians act as if Muslims are barbarians for defending the country against Blackwater, a Christian paramilitary group and who then try to convince me that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were some sort of Christian Pilgrims who envisioned America as a beacon of Christianity to rule its subjects under the laws of the Bible. Those are the people I hate, not Christians in general. Only they ones who hate me and want me to live under their 1st century laws.

So why do you hate gays and Arabs, women and blacks? Just stick to the plantation life.

Patrick M said...

Most things I say are in a somewhat joking or sarcastic manner.

And they're also fairly inaccurate.

I guarantee if Rush was a bastion of hypocrisy and hate I wouldn't listen and really wouldn't let my children listen. Let's compare Rush with Michael Savage for example. His vitriol makes it necessary that I listen in small doses and keep my children away. On the other hand, I only have to shake my head occasionally at Rush when he goes off the deep end (with a spectacular belly flop).

Let's just be blunt. He has to compete in a free market of ideas. If he was as factually wrong as you say he is, he wouldn't have lasted as long as he has. Is he slanted excessively right so that his spin on stories goes that way? Yes. Does that mean he pumps incessant lies? No. If all he did was pump lies, I guarantee I'd be calling bollocks and tossing his ass overboard.

Again, you seem to like to dwell on the hate train. Maybe you'll grow out of it, maybe not. But I can say that you'll never reach your best until you do.

shaw kenawe said...

I don't hate Bush. I hate what he's done to my country. You know. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

I'm not a religionist, but thought that example would clarify my position.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

A less inflammatory term? I didn't know we had options.

I hate what we've become as a nation. I hate that other nations see us as evil. I hate that our beloved and glorified capitalist economy preys on its own young and sources out jobs to the third world and leaves our nation on the unemployment line. I hate the lies and the propaganda. I hate that people who didn't need to die have died over a war that didn't need to be fought. I hate that so much of the world hates Americans more than they used to. I hate that a country that brags about its freedom reeks of prejudice, intolerance, closedmindedness and xenophobia. I hate the delusions of national grandeur so many Americans seem to live under. I hate that religion becomes another kind of hate.

Bush is an idiot. In a lot of ways I could probably find reasons to agree with people who claim him as the Antichrist. If I hate him, and you're right, hate is a strong word, it's because I hate all those things that have happened, and good, bad, or indifferent, it's the captain's problem. Do I think that Bush stood by with a simpleminded smile while other hidden bastions of evil orchestrated things without his knowledge, thus making him a puppet? No. I think he knew, and knows, what's going on. Do I think that some things he did had personal motivations? Absolutely. Do I fervently pray for Obama to get in office? So much so that we've discussed leaving the country should the Old Man win. (Of course, this would depend on finding someone who'll take Americans... )

Anyway. That's the story for whatever it's worth. It's late, though, so I don't know how much sense it's all going to make.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: Fairly answered. I'd say worthy of a Clinton, but you'd probably fly out to the great state of Ohio to bitch slap me.

Saty: You always have optiions in this country. I think that's something you forget when you go though your list of things about this country that infuriate you, so much so that you talk about leaving the country.

Consider that, in many countries, were you to say what you do about the President, or what I was saying during the last years of the Clinton years, a vacation to a modern gulag, with a scenic postage stamp for a window and free medical care (brain surgery with lead). And while we face many challenges, a lot of the problems in your list are things that have their roots back to even before either of us were born. I will give you that Iraq specifically has been a divisive and unclear endeavor. But even there, it looks distinctly possible now that we may be able to leave the country.

While I have had my problems with the Bush Administration, and many more during the Clinton administration, I'm starting to see that it's the system that really produces our problems. Presidents have specific programs and policies that they may be drilled honestly for. But there are limits to what one man, even the President, can do.

And despite the lateness (10:15???) you do make sense. Even when you're wrong. But that's something that may be the subject of another blog.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

1015 is late when you get up at 4.

And you know.. we're not the ONLY country on earth that doesn't shoot people who protest their government.

And 'enslaved by this poison of the soul'? No. I've been enslaved by alcohol, drugs, and various interpersonal relationships in the course of my life, but not by my feelings about our country's administration. Trust me, I have a big mouth and a lot of opinions, but I'm not foaming at the mouth over it or anything. My attention span is so short I couldn't work up the required frenzy to qualify (as enslaved by hate). Plus, really, you know, in the course of an ordinary day, the debate over whether to have peanut butter and banana or cucumber sandwiches is much more likely to stir emotions in me than the parade of ineptitude I see in Washington.

I mean, cmon, you read my blog. I illustrate it with Spongebob.

-National Sec'y, Association of United Nutbats

Satyavati devi dasi said...

PS. I think what I was trying to get at is even though I might argue a point with passion, I might not necessarily be as impassioned as the argument is.

Plus, I'm really a whole lot better at religious debates. Can't you lay out some opinions on evolution or something and give me a chance to show you why so many people said I should have gone to law school?

:P

Patrick M said...

Saty: If your attention span is that short, then why are your posts so long sometimes. You can't be that fast of a typist?

As for discussions on evolution, we'll see. I think I covered that somewhere back. I'll probably not get back to it until it makes news again. I usually try to get to issues from odd angles.

Toad734 said...

If he was wrong would he have lasted this long?? Umm, did you happen to catch the 04 election? Yes, there are plenty of stupid people out there who don't know fact from reality. Or at least know more about reality TV shows than what’s going on in the world and in the Whitehouse.

And if someone so wrong couldn't possibly still be around, why do 99% of all scientists agree that the earth is getting warmer and that man is contributing to that? Wouldn't they have all been replaced by "scientists" from the creation museum if they were so wrong?

Please list all the instances where you can show me information contrary to what I have stated or that proves me wrong. You may disagree with how taxes need to be distributed or think that only middle class people should have to pay taxes but it doesn't make you right and me wrong; it’s your, ill-informed opinion, not a fact.

Thanks for pointing out that Rush fills the "I hate freedom, I love war, I love rich people and Jesus" nitch. Theres a crowd and market for every message. If you hate blacks, I can find you a group of people who would love to hear more about it. If you hate fags, I can find you several groups who would love to hear more about it. Without accusing you of being that person, that's the kind of crowds Rush attracts.

There are millions of people who believe in the following:
1. Abominal snowman
2. Bigfoot
3. NJ Devil
4. Aliens have been in their bedrooms
5. That we are descendents of Aliens
6. That we are descendents of Jesus/God/Noah/Adam and Eve.
7. Lochness Monster
8. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
9. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Etc.

Millions of dollars have been spent marketing these creatures, magazines and conspiracy theories, movies, tourist traps and millions of people who buy into it all. Not because they are true but because the people telling the story has something the people who are buying it want. It doesn't make it true or real, in fact, there is very little to support evidence of any of it.

The "he has so many listeners" is not a defense of Rush's policies, conspiracy theories and ideas. It just proves that people will believe anything the TV and radio tell them.

Like I said, it has been a few years since I have listened to his show. I have seen him on TV a few times and heard about some of his arrests and what not so I know he's an idiot. Do a post on Rush's stances on the issues and I will clear them up for you and steer you in the right direction or at least tell you why he has no business discussing such topics. Ever wonder why he never appears on any talk shows like Real Time or anything else where there was someone who could refute his bullshit? Something to think about.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

I babble. Or have you not noticed? Also, I very rarely stick to one topic in a post.. it sort of wanders tangentially here, there, and then back over here again.

And yeah, I type about 75wpm, which is fast, but not as fast as I talk, and not nearly as fast as I think.

:)

Patrick M said...

Umm, did you happen to catch the 04 election?

why do 99% of all scientists agree that the earth is getting warmer...

Rush fills the "I hate freedom, I love war, I love rich people and Jesus" nitch.

etc....


Besides continuing to go farther and farther off topic, you list of inaccuracies grows.

But you've had time to vent your spleen. And prove my point.

So we'll continue this in my next post, where there's bound to be some 'propaganda' you'll have issue with.

Saty: We'll have to have a thinking contest then. See who's head bursts first.