Bush Supporters Here: Why the Left Hates Bush

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by peachgirl
So, you think Bush appointed Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice because they were black? Do you believe that their race played any part in their appointments?

No, I don't think race played any part in their appointments. They were both appointed because of their competence. I guess that is offensive to some people that ability is given preference over ethnic or racial background.
 
Oh, Lord...here we go again...

Assuming that we should LIKE a man because he hired someone like us is about as asinine a thought as I can imagine. I remember reading a thread on the Debate board about this, on the heels of threads claiming that we don't need "role models" and we vote like "crabs"... :confused:

Bush got 8 percent of the African American vote in 2000. The latest Gallup Poll gives him approx 9% of the vote in 2004. Hmmm, let me see. I don't think we are stupid enough to ignore the issues and accept the fact that he hired someone who looked like us.

My niece went to Stanford when Ms Rice was on the faculty. My niece, who is a Republican, btw, was amazed by her conservatism. Conservative Blacks DO exist, just as liberal and conservative WHITES do exist... does that make you all the same or make you just like each other???

Why do people assume that if the "my best friend is --fill in the blank--" crap still washes with us???

Believe it or not we DO read, we DO analyze and we DO come to intelligent conclusions. I don't come to the same conclusions as others, but I don't write articles about WHY they think the way they do...that's absolutely insulting and ridiculous.

I don't HATE Bush, I disagree with his policies and the way he's ruled these past four years. Believe it or not I was HERE these past 4 years and , being a thinking and highly educated adult, made up my mind because of how it affected ME.

 
I think America will be fine with either guy... I mean, we are America... We sink and swim no matter who is our leader... because the president doesn't have ALL the powers... I think both guys are politics... I'll leave it at that... Politics::yes::
 
I think the article was well done. Many of us who follow politics have noticed the increase in what looks like (noted in article) near-religious anger and hysteria toward Bush himself, which began during the 2000 election. He hadn't had time to do anything yet and was already the antichrist; the protests featuring Bush=Hitler signs and buring him in effigy have been widely publicized.

So if anyone wants to discuss what's in the article instead of self-analyzing, please feel free.
 

Originally posted by Viking
You have to realize that American conservatives obviously consider everyone disagreeing with them as hating them. Europeans being fond of the USA, but disagreeing with Bush's way to handle things, are already sick of being called Anti-American because of this.

IMHO American conservatives simply 'need' an enemy onto whom they can project their negative energy. With the Soviet Union gone they are in dire need of new enemies: Be it gays, muslims, Europeans, democrats, or simply everone who is different. :rolleyes:

BTW, I love your countdown :p

Wow----that is a broad, sweeping statement. Don't lump me into that category, thank you very much.

I do not "need" enemies because of my so called negative energy (didn't know I had any). I do not consider gays, muslims, Europeans, democrats my enemies. Who is my enemy? Any one person (i.e. a terrorist) who will kill me and my babies only because I live in a free country and am an American (and a woman for that matter). That is who we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world. That is why I am being separated from my husband for at least 18 months so he can defend our freedoms and civil liberties. That is who Bush is putting his foot down against and I agree with him & his tactics. The terrorists do NOT CARE who is our president- they want to kill us no matter what. I think Bush & his administration can do a better job protecting us against them. And you know what, even if it was a proven fact that by voting Kerry into office that it would mean my husband coming home immediately, I wouldn't do it. I voted for Bush the first time because I think he has certain principles that I agree with, and I will vote for him again.
 
Many are saying they disagree with Bushes policies. In all of this, I still have never heard or read what EXACTLY John Kerry can do better? Why are you voting for Kerrry (or are you just voting against Bush and do not care who beats him)? I don't want to hear what Bush did wrong, I want to here how Kerry can improve my life and what it will cost me (because I know he is going to raise my taxes)

Don't talk political generalities, GIVE ME SPECIFICS along with why it is better than what Bush is doing.
 
Alice28 - Good for you. Because of your husband and other wives just like you MY freedoms and MY protection is being protected. I stand up and applaud our military and their families. ITA with everything you said. Yes, I am voting for PRESIDENT Bush because I agree with the way he is handling Iraqi, the terroist situation, and he is not afraid to stand up for what he believes. Thank you to you, your DH and the other military men that are standing for our freedoms!!
 
Originally posted by Alice28
Wow----that is a broad, sweeping statement. Don't lump me into that category, thank you very much.

I do not "need" enemies because of my so called negative energy (didn't know I had any). I do not consider gays, muslims, Europeans, democrats my enemies. Who is my enemy? Any one person (i.e. a terrorist) who will kill me and my babies only because I live in a free country and am an American (and a woman for that matter). That is who we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world. That is why I am being separated from my husband for at least 18 months so he can defend our freedoms and civil liberties. That is who Bush is putting his foot down against and I agree with him & his tactics. The terrorists do NOT CARE who is our president- they want to kill us no matter what. I think Bush & his administration can do a better job protecting us against them. And you know what, even if it was a proven fact that by voting Kerry into office that it would mean my husband coming home immediately, I wouldn't do it. I voted for Bush the first time because I think he has certain principles that I agree with, and I will vote for him again.


Thank you for proving my point :rolleyes:
 
and what is the difference between that and what the other side does - the "evil" we must all fear is the Bush administration itself. Like that makes more sense.
 
Hate Bush?

Hmmmm. . . hate is a pretty strong emotion that takes a lot of energy, and I've never considered any politician worth going through all that trouble over. . .

Do I dislike and at times loathe the man? Most definitely. . .

Now, although I don't think "dislike and loathe" are exactly the same as "hate," all three terms represent various levels of strong negative emotions about someone or something. .

So although it might not be scientifically unassailable, in the name of casual political research I think it might be possible to test Dr. Hanson's psychological model. . especially since Dr. Hanson's doctorate is in Greek and Latin Lit and not Political Science or Psychology . ;) Heck, in the sense of fairness ad continuity; for this exercise I'll even use the word "hate" to describe my perhaps irrational emotions. . :)


Okay, Dr. Hanson was kind enough to concede on behalf of all haters like me an "admission that much of the invective is irrational, fueled by emotion rather than reason. . ." and that my hatred is "pathological" (altered or caused by disease) and . . "not explicable in terms of rational disagreement. "


Now in order to test the good Doctor's thesis we need to make sure we know what it means. . . now "invective" means "insulting or abusive language". . . "irrational" is "something not based on reason" . . . "pathological" means "altered or caused by disease". . and "not explicable in terms of rational disagreement" means "not capable of being explained by reason. . "

So it seems to me basically Hanson's working thesis is this:

"Although I didn't ask them; I know this Bush Hater here(meaning me) agrees that much of the abusive and insulting language he uses to describe Bush is not based on reason, but rather it is a manifestation of hatred impossible to explain by reason because it can only be the result of mental illness. . "

:eek:


Well now. . . if that hadn't come from a non-Bush hater I'd almost call that theory irrational invective. . . but that's probably just my mental illness talking. . LOL!! ;)


All righty.. in order to see if Hanson's model works, we need a few stated reasons as to why someone like me would hate Bush so much, and then we just need to look and see if there is no other way to explain it but in the terms he claims. . .



Okay, here we go. . .

I "hate" Bush because:

He ordered the military to drop thousands of cluster bombs and napalm on Iraq knowing neither was needed as a tactical weapon, and knowing even the highest estimates of bombing accuracy by the military is 90%; meaning 10% would go places we didn't mean them too and would end up killing hundreds of innocent Iraqi's and that the cluster bombs would continue to kill children for years. . .

I also "hate" Duh-bya (hey look, an ivective! ;0 :D) because he claimed the Iraqi situation was a "liberation" and strongly chastised anyone who dared call it an "occupation". . until about six months later when he decided to admit it was an occupation after-all although he refused to admit he ever claimed it wasn't one. . and he also claimed they had fully weaponized weapons of mass destruction before the war but now claims he said "weapon programs" not actual weapons. .


I don't hate Bush because he went along with that whole "Top-Gun" photo-op of landing on the aircraft carrier in the jumpsuit and said "major combat was over" in front of the "mission accomplished" banner although he well knew it was a political decision and not a military conclusion. . and he let his people tell the American people that it wasn't a photo-op and that the only reason he flew in like he did was because it was the only way for him to get there without slowing down the troops trip home because the ship was so far out to sea . .

Then when the always sharp press pointed out that they had come out to the same ship on boats and that it was floating only a few miles off shore and had been floating there for a couple hours and had turned it so the site of the shore and the relatives waiting on the soldiers on the dock wouldn't be seen on TV. ; Bush sent his people out to say that they thought the ship would be too far out and by the time they realized it was getting there faster then they expected it was to late to change their plans. Then when that lie fell apart, Bush sent them out to say he did it because he wanted to relive his glory days as a fighter pilot. . .

No, the "hate" I feel for him concerning that incident is after constantly using the military as a backdrop and claiming such respect and honor for those who serve in it. . a few months later when our soldiers kept dying in Iraq and the "Mission Accomplished" banner was becoming an embarrassment to him, Bush himself came out and blamed whole thing on the men and women on that ship. . he said it was their idea, not his and not his people's.

And then when that didn't go over too well, he sent his people out the next day to say they had made the banner and the sailors had hung it. .


I "hate" him because he swaggered up and challenged all present and future terrorists to "bring it on!" if they wanted a piece of him in Iraq. . . his tough-guy act was pretty impressive until you remembered he was thousands of miles away from the actual fighting and men and women who were just there doing their duty are still paying a price because at least some terrorists took him up on his rhetoric. . .



Okay, there's a few examples of my "hate" for Bush and why I feel that way. . .

Obviously I think I'm being rational; but then if Dr. Hanson is right that would be because of a mental illness and I wouldn't know any better . . :(


So I guess it up to whoever wants to read my examples and then compare them with Hanson's thesis to decide if you think he has a valid point or not and if there's any important lessons to be learned with it.. .

I'm heading for the track; will read any thoughts you all might have on this. .


:cool:
 
This is somewhat in response to Robin and is my first post on this board. I, with all honesty, would like to know why when a conservative Republican appoints capable African-American's to high level positions, they are considered token appointments? I am not saying you inferred or said this, but I get this perception in general. Why do some African-Americans refer to these people as "Uncle Tom"'s, as did Harry Belafonte, yet people whose monetary existence depends on fomenting racism get glorified? I believe these people should be the role models to African-American youth as they are highly educated, successful, and very respectable. I think this is the point that Kendra, I believe, was trying to make; conservative leaders do not get credit for making these appointments. IMO the Democrats pay lip service and get more credit.
 
Mike:

And thanks for making your "first" post directly to me.... :teeth:

I didn't make any such statement, and try not to because unlike when caucasians make judgements against each other, Blacks are told we are calling each other "tokens" or whatever if the person of the same persuasion thinks differently.

People like them are in my everyday life, I don't have to look far to find excellent examples or "role models". What I see is that they were appointed to whatever reason they deserved it. That doesn't give the person who appointed them credit, imho, it gives them credit for deserving the job, period.

BTW, the word "token" has not been in my vocabulary for decades, it's so very nice for you to bring it up again, reminding me that some things never change.
 
Hate Bush?
No, I don't hate Bush. I do not like his politics but that hardly qualifies as "hate".

And didn't we just have 8 years of conservatives who truly did hate Clinton?

::yes:: ::yes:: :Pinkbounc :bounce:
 
(I just have to interject here and say I find it VERY funny that those who are all "Right on! Great article!" in the next breath take exception to "broad sweeping statements" about how the right is perceived by liberals and non-Americans.) :teeth:
 
I can't speak for her, but I don't think Kendra is saying that anyone here is a spokesperson for The Left. She specifically said "Dems" here, and Hanson also referred to Democrats as a separate thing in his article. He also says:

There are a number of issues in this contest on which reasonable people can differ.

(snip)

But what is not explicable in terms of rational disagreement is the Left's pathological hatred of George W. Bush. It transcends all contention over the issues, the Democratic hurt over the Florida elections, and even the animus once shown Bill Clinton by the activist Right.

I agree with him about the activist Left mostly because of pictures like this. Of course Democrats aren't going to vote for him, aren't even going to like him very much. But there are also the people, Left, Dem, Green, foreign or domestic, who believe (out loud) that the country is being run by this demented elitist who's too dumb to read cue cards. He's stealing elections and taking over the world and he's an evil dictator and all, but what really galls is that he's so dumb it's, you know, embarrassing.

Ah, well. Welcome aboard Mike. :p
 
Originally posted by Teejay32
I can't speak for her, but I don't think Kendra is saying that anyone here is a spokesperson for The Left. She specifically said "Dems" here, and Hanson also referred to Democrats as a separate thing in his article. He also says:



I agree with him about the activist Left mostly because of pictures like this. Of course Democrats aren't going to vote for him, aren't even going to like him very much. But there are also the people, Left, Dem, Green, foreign or domestic, who believe (out loud) that the country is being run by this demented elitist who's too dumb to read cue cards. He's stealing elections and taking over the world and he's an evil dictator and all, but what really galls is that he's so dumb it's, you know, embarrassing.

Ah, well. Welcome aboard Mike. :p

He also openly embraces his religious faith, and I think that seems to rile a lot of people. These same people never batted an eye when Clinton did photo ops of him walking into or out of Sunday church, holding Hilary's hand and clutching a bible in the other hand.
 
I, with all honesty, would like to know why when a conservative Republican appoints capable African-American's to high level positions, they are considered token appointments? I am not saying you inferred or said this, but I get this perception in general.

Actually, I did say "token black". Why I said it would take a very long response but here's the quick version:

When someone complains that Bush doesn't do x, y or z for the black community, Republicans immediately start pointing towards Powell and Rice as though it's some kind of proof that Bush and his party deserve the votes of black people.
 
:wave:

Hi Dan, nice to "see" ya!

And thanks for calling and checking on me yesterday! That was very thoughtful of you!
 
Robin,

I truly did not mean to insinuate that you did. I really was asking an honest question and did not try to imply anything by my choice of words. I agree that these people ( Colin Powell and Condi Rice) have been appointed for their outstanding qualifications and achievements. This is my point. My perception from co-workers and colleagues who happen to be African-American in the age group of 25-30 is that sports stars such as Allen Iversion and musicians such as Ludicrus (sp?) are more admired. I guess I'm asking you because there is little danger from the computer monitor in asking these questions as a white male than risking an issue in the workplace.

As for the credit, I suppose you're correct in that the credit should go to the individuals for their abilities. In my department at work is a 26 year old black engineer who greatly admires Bill Clinton. I asked him why and he says that Bill did great things for his people, but he can't name one. I cannot either by the way. So why is Bill seen as such a great President in the black community when in actuality he did very little for the black community, at least no more than any other President? In fact, under the Clinton administration, traditionally black colleges received the least amount of monetary assistance than under any other administration. George Bush's administration has actually contributed double the amount that Clinton's did, but he is seen as doing little to nothing for the black community. Why? This is what I mean by not getting the credit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.




New Posts









Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top