The easiest way to avoid political hatred is honesty and openness with the American public, just like the best corporate policies are those that practice openness with the public and media during a crisis. Whether Bush lied, or simply surrounded himself with people who didn't keep him properly informed is beyond the point. Either way, his responsibility is to American citizens, and he misled them. No one has a right to respect w/o earning it. When he works harder at that, maybe he'll get it. I despise Bush as a politician. I can't judge him as a man, b/c I don't know him personally. So does that make me a scumbag? Apparently to some people. I could equally say people that blindly support him and follow what they're told like a herd of sheep are scumbags. But I don't. I'm sure some people do. Their are bigots on both sides. There's ignorance on both extremes. What I'd really like to see is more people actually finding the facts rather than resorting to getting defensive and throwing insults around. It makes you look stupid... not the people you're insulting. Jenn
I knew it wouldn't be long before sheep came in to play. We had blind, so it was safe to say sheep would follow. Unfortunately, like most people who blindly hate the president (there's that word, blind, it can be used many ways ), they will accuse him of lying, but then never say at what. They just assume that he is. And when they do so, and are proven wrong, so filled with hatred, they don't care. And of course, there's always the excuse of "but, but, but it's our "duty" to question the government," as if they are actually questioning. Problem is, they aren't. But, if you feel the president "misled" the American people, I'd surely love to hear what you think he mislead them on. I'm quite certain it wouldn't be along the lines of this. But, I could be wrong It kind of reminds me of the people who are always sobbing tears that Bush has taken away their rights. But when you ask them what rights, they get that "deer in the headlights" look. The only logical conclusion is that "they" are part of al qaida, or they don't have a clue. Some times it's hard to tell the difference.
I voted no. If you ask me Bush has his head so far up his ass, its not funny. Its just my opinion so I'd rather people not have a go at me for it. I'm no scumbag, but I can tell you I sure as hell hate Bush.
That was actually part of a point I was trying to make. There's no "logical" reason for the hatred, it just occurs. Some call it BDS.
I never said every supporter fell into the "sheep" category. But it happens far too much, the administration knows it, which is why they manipulate people, and target them, by "groups" (such as the evangelical Christians as one group they've pretty openly targeted). It's all political PR... a field I nearly went into, and would have enjoyed if I had no morals. So I'm well aware of the tactics involved, and why people believe what they hear. Both parties are guilty of it. While I "appreciate" the reading material, it's late, so I'll have to peruse it later. But yes, the Bush administration misled the American people. He played upon fears and trust after a disaster and gave unverified information because it was more important politically at the time to have backing for their plans than to care about what most Americans could truly justify based on nothing but fact. Is the Bush Administration completely to blame? No. Are Republicans? No. Several past administrations contributed to the situation that led to terrorist actions against the US. Rather than owning up to it and confronting underlying problems, being the "big bad US of A" we went in with violence. Violence breeds more violence. Before this turns into a novel, I'll stop there. But in short, I'm not a republican. I don't support Bush. Every once in a blue moon he does something I consider respectable, and when he does, I openly admit it. I'm also not a democrat. I'm a registered independent. I vote both ways, based on the real issues, not based on party lines. I agree with both major parties on a variety of issues, and I'm about as unbiased as you can be in this day and age. But the fact is that while no one can justify blindly hating, I get pretty tired of people trying to justify blindly believing and acting like anyone who disagrees is "unAmerican." It's pretty disgusting.
Nor did I say that you said every supporter fell into the "sheep" category. I have this sudden feeling of deja vu. Huh? Did I miss a post? Yeah, you probably wouldn't want to read it anyway It would make the "Bush misled us" seem pretty outrageous. But, facts can get in the way of emotions. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but terrorism is real. No one is playing fear here, though it is "popular" and "fashionable" to state so these days. But really, your accusation doesn't make any sense. I get the feeling it wasn't supposed to. It lacks substance. It's generic. Blame for what? What do you feel there is to blame? Remind me, who all said saddam had wmd and when? You thought that wasn't obvious, so you stood up and proclaimed it? OK Disagree with what? Looks like another red herring. Did I miss a post about being "unAmerican?"
Just to set the record straight since there are, apparently, some from different "camps" weighing in... What exactly is a "scumbag?" It's like saying someone is a "deuche" isn't it? At first I thought the question fairly silly, so I answered it with an equally silly "some are, some ain't." But now differing camps seem adamant as to an actual answer. Can someone please qualify for me what exactly is a "scumbag?" I would like an actual definition to see if it really does apply. IN Christ
1. And I didn't say that you did. But you took issue w/ the term, so I was simply pointing out the fact that I wasn't trying to imply my use of the term as broadly as a lot of people do. 2. I'm not quite sure what you missed there. 3. I gave it a quick look over. I have no doubt plenty of people on both sides of the spectrum have misled the public. But they didn't lead us into war. Bush did. That immediately puts a greater responsibility on him to verify claims that he's using to justify his asking of people to risk their lives. 4. My accusation makes perfect sense. The Bush administration wouldn't have had quite as much support if they had taken the time to verify claims first. They gave information that would naturally bias American citizens (the whole WMD issues that's been talked to death everywhere) into at least some level of support. As I also said, I don't necessarily think he knew it was a mistruth when he said it... but that I feel he had a greater responsibility given his position to be able to prove any kind of claim that could cause people to support a war. I'm well aware terrorism is real. 9/11 affected me on a personal level. But I also understand where a lot of the sentiments of hate towards the US come from, how many lives were lost at least partly at our hands previously, and how any group might feel it's their only option against a nation too large for them to organize to fight against. Do I support terrorism? Not in the slightest. But nothing in this world is black and white, and anyone who acts like it is is either naive or blissfully ignorant. (And I'm not talking about you personally... just a general observation.) Saying terrorism isn't "real" wouldn't solve anything. But neither does using violence to subdue people unless you're also able to look at the underlying issues that led to the terrorist reaction in the first place. No problem is ever fully solved if you don't attack it at its root. We've barely even touched on it. 5. Blame for what? How about the reasons that so many people in the world despise us? I hate to break it you, but it's not just because they hate the idea of freedom. It's often much deeper than that, and a direct result of lives we've either taken over the last few decades, or lives that we've allowed to be taken by supporting our now enemies. 6. I proclaimed it, because I was making the point that I'm not just some general liberal spouting hatred for Bush. Considering the biased nature the thread was started with, I think it's more than appropriate... just as I stated my lack of affiliate with "the other side." 7. Who disagrees with them in their support of Bush and the war. I didn't say the term "unAmerican" was used in this thread directly. But it's all too common that I hear it, and it's just another example of the biased put forth by the initial post in the first place, by referencing "Bush haters" as potential "scumbags."
Actually, you were suggesting you never said it, as if I had implied such. After all, your response was to me. None-the-less, the point was made. Where the response came from. Has no bearing and is speculative without example. Actually, they did. As many/most of them did vote in Congress. There is no great responsibility to put on Bush here. He had the same intelligence the rest of the world intelligence agencies had, the same intelligence the previous administration had and the same intelligence Congress had. The American citizens didn't vote to go to war, Congress did. Once again, if you are going to accuse the administration of doing something, you should offer more than generic accusations. It's a worthy dicussion and I'm certainly willing to debate the issues, but without substance, they remain as nothing more than "Bush misled people" and "the whole wmd issue." You may have missed it, but WMD have been found in Iraq. It brings liberals to tears that it's true, but it is. I don't want a leader who is out to win a popularity contest. If being popular is your only goal, I consider that vain. Allies do not agree to be allies forever. History tells us that. It's popular and fashionable to hate Bush. I accept that, but still I try to find those "root causes" of why people do. Most really don't know why, they just know it's popular, so repeat it. No problem, I've debated quite a few people who claim to be on neither side, but only criticize one. Not saying you are necessarily doing that yet, but time will tell. Many times people use this as a disclaimer, but it usually backfires. Most bush haters are scumbags, IMO. I've come across very few that had valid reasons why they hate him. Most, when asked to back something up, like "Bush misled people" simply don't have substance to validate the opinion. It's ok to hate the president. I tend to respect those that have valid reasons, or those who are honest enough to admit they have no particular reason, they just do. It's the ones that pretend they have valid reasons, and yet when the disclose them (that's the hard part, getting them to be honest and disclose them), and when proven wrong, still go on haterizing.
A scumbage is a used rubber. No, but if that makes you feel better... According to the Urban Dictionary: "A person of poor judgment and no class." "used condom" ranks in at number 2....
That's kind of like that the people that will preface a racist remark by first saying, "I'm not racist, but..."
What the hell is this. Just because I'm Lebanese, right off the bat you assume I'm a terrorist, or support terror?! I can't believe that. It's so wrong and judgemental. Not everyone is the same. If you don't want to respect me as an individual, that's fine. I really don't care, and I'm definitely not going to kiss ass. I came here for business purposes anyway, not to be spoken to so rudely and as a representation of a majority. I just thought I'd add my input to the discussion, but clearly it was a big mistake.
NO, it's because of your posts in another thread. And thanks for reporting my post and getting me an infraction. Hope you feel better now
So it's fair to assume you were outraged by hezbollah hiding behind women, children and the UN as human shields?
If you let terrorist to take over in lebanon - you are supporting terrorism for me. Most of lebanese and your goverment don't do anything to stop terror that eventually would kill innocent people.
It's always easy to blame the ones who actually commit acts of terror and make it look like the masses are not behind it. Just like Hitler was the only one who hated Jews in Germany