It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush-Bashing

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
We've all seen it: Bush is a chimp, Bush is an idiot, Bush is the anti-Christ, etc. etc. etc.

To look at so many of the posts -- and avatars -- we see these on ATS days, Bush-bashing is a very popular sport. However, is it justified? Is Bush really the source of all evil in the modern world?

While it seems that just about every thread that mentions his name will include examples of Bush-bashing, I wanted to start a thread that examines the phenomenon of Bush-bashing itself.

I think Bush-bashing has less to do with Bush personally and more to do with a broader set of issues.

Do you think Bush-bashing cuts to the heart of the issue, or does it mask the real issues?

If you are a Bush-basher, why do you do it? If you are opposed to Bush-bashing, why do you oppose it?

It is doubtful that all of these questions will be answered to anyone's satisfaction, but it seems to me like a topic worth discussing on its own merits.

What do you think?


[edit on 12/2/2004 by Majic]




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I think Bush bashing is partly caused by the issues. People seem to think he's an idiot because he's always making what appears to be the wrong choice. i.e., Going to war with Iraq under false pretenses, privitizing social security, pushing for the Patriot acts, etc, etc...
There's also an "Our guy" versus "Their guy" metality to it. Bush seemed grossly underqualified for the job when he was originally elected and he didn't win the popular vote. This tends upset his detractors.
Also, most Bush supporters seem to lack the abitilty to discuss why they support him in a logical manner. This leads the "Bashers" to resort to childish name calling.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   
But Bush get's what he asks for. He's quite bashable.



He's designed to be divisive. A self styled "Texan" cowboy just as irritating as a Massachusetts liberal would be to half the country.

Most President's are kidded in a good natured way. I (barely) recall Nixon even being "hated" with a bit of incredulous jocularity. He was so dirty it was funny. Ford and Carter were the butt of jokes. Reagan made himself the butt of jokes. I'm old and stupid. Ha ha. Re-elect me.


Then it started to change with Bush 41. It got ugly, but less from "liberals" I'd say than just everyone. His own party was critical. The world was critical. Third parties became viable. And most importantly alternative media became viable.

Though it was still in the early stages both the Internet and the talk radio shock jock phenom were gaining mass and dividing the world into audiences. Collectively by the time Clinton came around you could find 100,000 people to join a website or tune in to a radio show or buy a book or watch a cable channel about Clinton.

"Visionaries" like Gingrich capitalized on the new divisiveness for political gain. It became more than a passing strategy. If a third of the country (in the right places) wanted to impeach a President, you could. It was the beginning of the end of gentleman's politics. No Reagan/ O'Neil style anything anymore.

Then came the candidate designed to capitalize on hate. George "One Finger Victory Salute" Bush. Rove knew what he was doing in Texas. Grooming that boy to be a man. The only man that could be hated enough to even consider making a movie about and making 51% of the country so mad about him being hated he get's re-elected out of spite.

Supporters don't say things like he's smart or conciliatory or the best President ever. They say things like I hate liberals. That's why Bush even has support. People hate the people that hate him. It's all dinner theater. He is that stupid in my opinion, but he works at it too.

In my thinking someone has to really, and I mean really hate Democrats to re-elect Bush as I see no good reason whatsoever. He is a smirking chimp.

I just bought the new book What's the Matter with Kansas? today and will post something once I finish. It's all about "what happened" with the Conservative insurgency in the heartland from a Bush Bashing Backlash standpoint.

I also picked up Jon Stewart's America as an example of the bashing.


For what it's worth, I still think there's quite a bit of good naturedness to the Bush ribbing. I mean "smirking chimp" isn't that bad. Look at how they did Kerry in comparison. And not from the wing nuts, I mean from the party. You can't compare a handful of international posters that want to put Bush on trial for war crimes to the Republican Party (and Zell Miller) that wanted Kerry drawn and quartered.

Pfft. Don't even talk to me about "Bush Bashing" unless you can clean your own stable. It's full of it.


[edit on 2-12-2004 by RANT]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
As always, O Great RANT, I stand in awe of your rapier-like wit.

I disagree with some of your observations, but want to keep the points of disagreement hidden for now.

Is Bush's (marginal) popularity really a product of image design, or is there more to it than that?

I challenge you to critique your own critique, if you are willing, and play devil's advocate against your own observations. I will understand if you decline my challenge, but I think such an exercise would prove instructive for everyone, regardless of their position on Bush and Bush-bashing.

By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with you on some points as well, but want to hold back on that for now.

What is your critique of your critique?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
What is your critique of your critique?


I was adding and editing while you posted this. Not backloading. Let me have a puff or two and I'll think of something to go here.


I've actually been thinking of starting an "opposites" thread if you're interested. Where all must enter only to argue for your opponent.

Not tongue in cheek. Seriously. Not sure if I could do it.

Thinking...



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I was adding and editing while you posted this. Not backloading. Let me have a puff or two and I'll think of something to go here.


I've actually been thinking of starting an "opposites" thread if you're interested. Where all must enter only to argue for your opponent.

All I can say is damn you! Damn you! You are the Amadeus to my Antonio Salieri.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go brood darkly somewhere...



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
why do I bash bush? where do I begin?

I think it started for me when he first ran for President and it came to be known that he was a former cokehead and alcoholic. Now I am all for second chances, but the lack of acknowledgement of bad judgement and acceptance of personal responsibility immediately turned me off of Bush.

Then he won and he began to speak, well, really he didn't, he was on vacation alot, anyways 9/11 happened and I supported our President and our country, but it irked me to the reaction of Bush on 9/11, but I let that slide. Then Bush began to speak more and more and his ummms and uhhhs and duhs.... made me want to cover my ears whenever he spoke. His inability to vocalize his thoughts made me think he was an idiot.

Then we declared war on terrorism, which I am for to a certain extent. But then things got carried away and focus was lost on Bin Laden and what seemed to be a personal vendetta in my eyes began to occur when that focus shifted to Saddam Hussain.

But even then I let it slide, I supported war in Iraq when I was under the impression that Saddam had wmds and his use of them on Americans was imminent. But when that didn't pan out and our President still refused to acknowledge his mistakes, angry words would come to mind whenever I think of him and how he is running this country.

I could go on and on about the different reasons why I dislike and disagree with the Bush Administration, but to sum it all up, I bash Bush because I am entitled to, as an American, with the right of free speech, same way I bashed Clinton for his sordid affairs, same way I bash Falwell, same way I would Bash any other public figure for grievances I clearly have with them.


[edit on 12-2-2004 by worldwatcher]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Rant I think you expressed in your post the best view about Bush -Basing I have ever seen. I guess his followers knows how bad he is, that they hate others when they bring it up



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I was going to be clever and not explain what it was, just start...but we can still do that.


As for my critique of my critique, I suppose it's simple. I never answered your question.



Originally posted by Majic
Do you think Bush-bashing cuts to the heart of the issue, or does it mask the real issues?


Yes and no. Alot of bashers are ideology based, not issue based so that's masking nothing. Alot of what Bush feigns for effect however is to mask issues. I know that's not what you were going for and I'm not playing devil's advocate against myself, but the defense of some of the biggest Bush blunders now is well you just hate him because you hate Bush so the bashing backlash does serve a designed purpose in my mind.

Majic, those debates were horrible. Disasterous. I don't see how anyone couldn't cringe at Bush's performance. But half the country didn't. They defended his ineptitude and actually preferred it to overly skilled oration. Now seen as a detriment.

We'll never have another experienced politician in office, much less a Senator with more than two terms under his belt. As long as this keeps up, backwoods Governors pretending to be inept outsiders will hold the inside track.

Let's see who's on deck? Schwarzenneger? Pataki? Guiliani? A mayor I know...but he's even worse.

Will I bash them? Yes. Perhaps partially to mask issues, though not intentionally. I mean what issues? I'm one that doesn't hold much merit in the Republican Party if you can't tell. I know what they're supposed to stand for, but I see it all as a ruse. It's hard to debate people that speak a different language. If someone is convinced the "issues" are smaller government and personal responsibility and back Republicans, what's to say?

It's just easier to point out Bush is a smirking chimp than explain why everything a person believes is wrong point by point.
It never makes any difference anyway.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
You make a very good case for Bush-bashing. Personally, I think to focus on the Bush persona is to swallow a canard hook, line and sinker -- but I still want to stay clear of the bruhaha as best I can for for now (aside from gratuitous snipes like this one), and hope you can understand my rationale there.

What I am looking for now is someone to weigh in with the compelling argument against Bush-bashing, because frankly, the argument for Bush-bashing is looking pretty strong right about now.

So for the plucky reader out there, where is RANT mistaken?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
OK, I will answer why I am against Bush,

I hate the way he took the country of Iraq base on lies, he as a leader should have done better to find the truth, and now the Iraqi people not only suffer under Saddam they are suffering under the invasion.

Bush has not sense of leadership at all he under estimated the willingness of the people in Iraq and the perseverances of opposition and has scarified our soldiers in his holy crusade to prove to the world that he can do anything in the name of the lord and get away with it.

You wanted to know why I am against him and that is my answer.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
What I am looking for now is someone to weigh in with the compelling argument against Bush-bashing, because frankly, the argument for Bush-bashing is looking pretty strong right about now.

So for the plucky reader out there, where is RANT mistaken?


It was more of an explanation for Bush bashing than an excuse. It's a mistaken approach because it's self defeating (but I'm not about to stop now!). The man is entirely beatable on issues, but to even enter that fray one would have to concede certain dignities upon him many aren't willing to do. I'm not. Can you imagine?

I hear where you're coming from George and you make some excellent points, but...

Not directed at George per se, but as an example. The fact is the wedge as it has been devised (no matter who's responsible) is so great I'm no more likely to condede the required dignity upon Jerry Falwell for a debate on abortion than Ann Coulter is willing to give Hillary for a healthcare discussion.

It's not just that Bush is a smirking chimp, but I'm a lunatic anti-American socialist, right? And here we are.

I wouldn't bash McCain, but the RNC won't run him either. They'll rig it to run someone like Schwarzenneger so I have to bash the guy and he gets to skate on issues.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   


Our country was invaded on 9/11 and all Americans were behind our president in his endeavor to find the perpetrator:Osama Bin Laden- only to find out that we were to lose sight of Osama later and have our president state publicly that Osama wasnt that much of a worry, and we would "eventually find him"...Our president then turned his attention to a country with no WMD's and a country who did not bother us, did this to bring back the token Saddam home to daddy Bush....Our president and his cabinet were directly behind the abuse in Iraq and Cuba of prisoners...The V.P. has made God knows how many millions of profit due to war...The accusations of bad "intelligence"...The oil being the reason for the war...

I'm sure i could think of 1,000 more reasons why Bush leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
But you know all the reasons..some of you just do not want to see the truth, its easier to close your eyes and say this isnt happening.

I am curious as to why a thread like this would be started. For what?
The comeback is always the same. We're foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts and have absolutely no proof of any of these charges and therefore we're crazy.

Then, why ask?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
It's not just that Bush is a smirking chimp, but I'm a lunatic anti-American socialist, right? And here we are.

There are few things I am sure about, and the fact that you can't be defined by a single label -- or a label shorter than a large novel, for that matter -- is definitely one of them

To hike my skirt a little regarding my position, I think that Bush-bashing makes the same error: trying to classify in overly simplistic terms a man who is not as simple as he purports to be.

In my opinion, as long as Bush can trick his opponents into "misunderestimating" him, he will continue to thrash them soundly. I think Bush-bashing plays right into his hands.

On the other hand, his opponents can choose to claim that they have been defeated by an idiot, but I find such an approach to be somewhat dubious, for reasons I hope are obvious.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Majic, those debates were horrible. Disasterous. I don't see how anyone couldn't cringe at Bush's performance. But half the country didn't. They defended his ineptitude and actually preferred it to overly skilled oration. Now seen as a detriment.


I'm speaking for myself here, not all Bush supporters. I won't deny that Kerry is a much better public speaker then Bush. But Kerry was to good... for his own good. He gave off an arrogent aura and danced around issues changing stance whenever he thought something wasn't working. Bush never changed his stance once. I didn't like his plans to include foreign countries in our countries decision making. He talked about how he was going to make things better in the U.S. but never, not once, did he say how. Bush had a plan... Revamping the education system... privatizing Social Security... etc.

Plus, I guess I'm just a conservative at heart... smaller government, less taxation, privitization, etc.


Originally posted by Marg6043

I hate the way he took the country of Iraq base on lies, he as a leader should have done better to find the truth, and now the Iraqi people not only suffer under Saddam they are suffering under the invasion.


Who knows now? Saddam probably did have WMD's at one point in time. Clinton sure gave him ample time to dispose of them. I guess if you call it an invasion it sounds worse than liberation. Took the country? we aren't taking it. I mean we aren't going to keep it if you get what I'm trying to say.

As for Bush bashing, I dunno I used to bash Clinton, not quite as badly as some bash Bush. It doesn't bother me to much I guess, but I think the Bush bashing sometimes gets in the way of rational thinking. Sometimes it seems to be a bit overdone, almost as if he's a scapegoat for something larger. Somewhere down the line Bush bashing almost seems to have become "the cool thing to do." It certainly has become a very accepted way of expressing your opinion on matters.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Argh, I had a nice post going here but hit something on the keyboard and now it's gone... guess I'll jut say that...

Bush-bashing is in bad taste. Criticising Bush and making fun of him are both childish and disrespectful. Both sides of the argument can be charged with disrespectuflly attacking the other, I would say the Left more-so, but perhaps I'm biase I certainly know that it is this attitude, and Bush/America-bashing that have driven me so far from the left and quite a bit farther to the Right.

Just by his character Bush is going to make himself the subject of jokes, primarily because of his poor speech-giving skills. He does sound like a fool when he speaks in public, however if the issues he's been required to take sides on weren't so controversial I don't think hatred of him would have ever reached this level. I never really noticed too much Bush-bashing until the Iraq war.

Bush represents the opposite of the Left in many ways it would seem. They don't just disagree with him in his methods or about his opinions, but apprantly his (and any of his supporter's) just see the world completely differently from the Left, as such they have grown to hate him. (And despite what they may say, I get the feeling they also hate anyone who doesn't hate him) In the end it would be to everyone's benefit if both sides could refrain from childish bashing and name calling and instead provide constructive-criticisim.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:49 AM
link   
That is simply how I was raised, to love your neighbor as yourself.

Now when it comes to policies, I am disappointed with many issues. Sometimes what I can agree upon has some zinger to it, and when I wanted to cheer, there was again something disappointing. I am hard pressed to find anything I completely agree upon.

Now the spirit of understanding is critical, that the heat of battle within the easy path of ad hominem attacks diverts from sober criticism of policies. It is very easy when you are displeased with policies to fall into the "divided and conquered," format. With every bit of energy you waste in criticising President Bush, you detract from the more enlighted criticism of policy. Sure it is bad to pollute, to bow down to special interests, and all that. You could redirect your energies to saying "Bush is a bad man," but does that solve anything? Do everything you can to write sober prescriptive policy analysis if you can, and if you cannot write it, find someone who can with a google search, using it to bolster your research. Sadly many Bush supporters are drained of sober understranding from the bitterness of the campaign. All the wrong values are reinforced. So are many of the opposition in the same mood.

Well that is all I can say, love Bush, and hope every day that our country conveys the best changes of mind and heart possible to steer it off the shoals.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I used to be much more at odds with Bush bashers than I am now. It took me a while to realize why I felt so at odds with them. Part of it was upbringing. I'm one of the baby boomers. Our parents fought in WWII and Korea, and we fought in Nam. Sad that we define our history by our armed conflicts, but that is human nature.

Discipline was stronger in those days. Respect for one another. If you had a strong opinion against the president, well, you spoke it while at the local bar, having a beer. And even then you didn't go overboard - you'd be told to tone it down a bit, show some respect.

We spoiled our kids. That's the root of the problem. Today's youth think they are cute, posting pictures of the president giving the finger, or calling him a chimp.

So, IMO, part of the issue is that the majority of Bush bashers are just young. Not their fault. It's just that they are impressionable and love to hear someone make potty mouth remarks about the president. Titillating to their little libidos, and so easy to indulge in, on that nice new computer that mommy and daddy gave them to "do their homework" on.

Yeah, I know. Freedom of spech and I'm a kool-aid drinking sheeple. But remarks like this

Supporters don't say things like he's smart or conciliatory or the best President ever. They say things like I hate liberals. That's why Bush even has support. People hate the people that hate him. It's all dinner theater. He is that stupid in my opinion, but he works at it too.

prove my point. We hate liberals. Yeah, right.:shk:

No, it's just the sheer craziness of it all that amazes and frustrates me. I mean, someone on ATS actually said that Bush deliberately created the flu vaccine shortage in order to hurt the American people. Another stated that Kerry doesn't mind that he lost because of some Skull&Bones ritual pact or something.

It's stuff like that that give me a justifiable reason to hate liberals, but I just feel pity for them. Hopefully they will grow out of it.

So that's it. It isn't about criticizing the president so much as it is unformed thinking. Another prime example: the emails that went around, saying that Bush was going to bring back the draft. Nowhere did the responsible liberals point out that DEMOCRATS Rangel and Hollings were behind this. They could only spread their notion that Bush will by necessity have to bring back the draft, thus giving credence to the inflammatory, untrue emails. Totally irresponsible disinfo lies. But they don't seem to care - their response is to post an unfavorable jpeg of Bush. And the rest of the kiddies giggle.

That's why I have a problem with Bush-bashing.


EDIT Typos

[edit on 3-12-2004 by jsobecky]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 03:25 AM
link   
hey, majic. they still bash hitler. was he alone responsible for WWII? HAHAHA! it's laughable to think that one man could go back in time and create the thule society which gives him the idea to go back in time to create the thule society ad nauseum.
churchill and hitler masonic brothers!? no way?
kerry and bush skull and bones brothers? no way?
saddam and osama both in bed with the CIA at some point? no way?

so, who do you suggest we bash, majic? innocent civilians? they are the ones justifying munitions contracts this instant. they're getting bashed pretty good i'd say. all at the taxpayers expense. later, the taxpayers can send more money for prosthetics and such, as a good gesture for all the oil and power that was pilfered.

a bush bashing forum.
I LIKE IT!



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
So, IMO, part of the issue is that the majority of Bush bashers are just young. Not their fault. It's just that they are impressionable and love to hear someone make potty mouth remarks about the president. Titillating to their little libidos, and so easy to indulge in, on that nice new computer that mommy and daddy gave them to "do their homework" on.


What do you think the average age of the Rush Limbaugh listener was during the 90's? He wasn't potty mouthed? Maybe not per se, but definitely among the lowest of the low brow and a forerunner to all the bashing of today.

Chelsea is the pet dog of the White House? Hitlery?

Puhlease, don't try laying all bashing at the feet of liberals or on the young. Though it appears to be a common denominator among both sides to assume the bashers are teens even when not.

Though my actions serve as your example, I was raised in the same generation as you. Maybe a little younger, but I assure you I was just as shocked at how our President Clinton was treated for 8 years. And here we are.

Now bashing is in bad taste all of a sudden? I don't think so. It just started to taste good.

I know, I know. Not a single conservative that hates Bush bashing today was one of the one's that bashed Clinton.
It was all somebody else.

And they were sooooo much more clever about it. In fact, conservatives are just funnier and wittier than liberals. That's why Ann Coulter's Daily Show is so popular among college educated baby boomers. And the anti Moore movie Fahrenhype is the highest grossing movie ever.


It would be very easy to dismiss the rampant hatred of George W Bush as the folly of youth, but there's 6 billion people on the planet you actually get to see once in a while on stations other than Fox of another opinion.

I don't make the mistake of assuming all Kerry bashing Bush backers are teens, but I certainly do see the wholly unformed "young Republicans" that think it's cool to be anti-cool in some perverse conservative punk movement. And I've had more than my fair share of forced interaction with very young evangelicals (don't ask) but they scare the bejesus out of me. 14 year olds that hate, hate, hate Islam, Democrats, Hollywood, TV, educators, news media... you name it, evangelical children are being raised to hate it.

And they think they're funny too. Worse camping trip of my life.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join