"Bush Bashing"

2»

Comments

  • Oh, Jesus Christ. Did you not watch tv or listen to the radio from 1992-2000? Yeah, the entertainment industry just decided to start criticizing politicians last week.

    I will never understand why some actor/musician criticizing the President gets some people bent so out of shape. These right wing radio people harp about it constantly. "These unqualified celebrities spouting their unsolicited opinions, etc. etc." I find these criticisms pretty ironic coming from a bunch of overbearing, condescending fat-asses whose main job is to run their mouths.

    I do believe the level and viciousness that is directed at Mr. Bush is FAR more "over the top" than in the 90's.
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    That bill is a joke and the only reason it went through is so Republicans can use it as an example of their party's "strength on national security" from now until November.


    you left out, "in your opinion"
  • hippiemom wrote:
    Comedians?! They're doing their job! Haven't you ever seen Chevy Chase fall out of a helicopter as Gerald Ford? Ford seemed to handle it just fine, it got Chevy on the golf course with the president.

    You don't remember all the jokes and skits about the redneck peanut farming Carter family? What's going on now is TAME by comparison. They pick on Bush, sure, but they were ruthless to Carter's entire family, his young daughter included.

    How about Reagan? All the jokes about what an airhead he was?

    Bush I? Whether it was his goofy speaking style, or his puking on foreign heads of state, I remember plenty of jokes about him.

    And Clinton, my god ... you MUST remember that! He made it so easy for them, every comedian loves a good sex joke.

    There's nothing new here ... serving as fodder for the nation's comedians is part of the job.

    why do so many of you here selectively choose one part of a larger statement, and mock it or w/e whilst ignoring the rest? My post mirrored several others in multiple points, yet this is what you choose to "discuss" with me.
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Did I miss where that was the topic of this thread?

    Bush bashers are lining up for this thread. :0

    well, you decided to lay the blame for bin laden on clinton. im just saying bush is doing no better. clinton tried, i dont think you can fault him for not being able to pull off something that nobody has been able to pull off.
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    you left out, "in your opinion"

    Yes, IN MY OPINION, it's an unbelievably bad idea to let any president, especially this one, have the last word on defining what constitutes torture.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    why do so many of you here selectively choose one part of a larger statement, and mock it or w/e whilst ignoring the rest? My post mirrored several others in multiple points, yet this is what you choose to "discuss" with me.
    Sheer laziness. I picked the easiest part. It's Friday.

    Ok, ok, I'll move on ....
    There's criticism, with the goal of improving things, and there's blaming things on bush that are clearly out of his control or things handed to him by previous presidents, soley because you dislike the man.
    Every president is handed things by his predecessor, some good and some bad. Six years down the road, you can't blame your predecessor any more. You've had six years to fix what needed fixing, these things are now YOUR problems. Criticizing a president over inherited problems after 6 months in office is ridiculous ... after 6 years, it's perfectly legitimate.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • OpenOpen Posts: 792
    jlew24asu wrote:
    drastic measures must be taken on preventing a nuclear bomb from going off in this country. the senate and house seem to agree.

    Come on dude...the inspectors said he had nothing..there was no threat.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Open wrote:
    Come on dude...the inspectors said he had nothing..there was no threat.


    im not talking about Iraq. im talking about captured el queda members.


    every time it always comes back to Iraq.
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    you left out, "in your opinion"

    Yes it is "in your opinion", but here is a question: Have you ever been involved in political campaigns at this level or worked at this level of government?

    This vote was done on a very political and partisan way. Now the Republicans can say, "Democrats voted against using any means possible to catch terrorists, while we will stop of nothing to protect you and your freedom" (Even if it is un-constitutional)
  • OpenOpen Posts: 792
    jlew24asu wrote:
    im not talking about Iraq. im talking about captured el queda members.


    every time it always comes back to Iraq.

    It should come back to Iraq dude. It's like OJ saying it always comes back to the murders.

    Regarding al queda...say there was a nuclear threat from al queda, why just let them hang in the mountains and regroup? Do u not think it would be more logical if we focused all our effort on the real threat el queda, as opposed to the supposed threat (Iraq)?
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Im not missing anything. You however, are hijacking the thread. If all the left criticized Bush for was Iraq, it wouldnt be so ridiculous. But some of the things I've seen blamed on Bush in the last few years are hilarious. This is a "criticize vs. Bash" thread.


    bash (bsh) Pronunciation Key
    v. bashed, bash·ing, bash·es
    v. tr.
    To strike with a heavy, crushing blow: The thug bashed the hood of the car with a sledgehammer.
    To beat or assault severely:
    To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.



    VS.

    crit‧i‧cize  /ˈkrɪtəˌsaɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[krit-uh-sahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -cized, -ciz‧ing.

    –verb (used with object) 1. to censure or find fault with.
    2. to judge or discuss the merits and faults of: to criticize three novels in one review.
    –verb (used without object) 3. to find fault; judge unfavorably or harshly.
    4. to make judgments as to merits and faults.

    I see by definition "bashing" includes the word "criticism" ...albeit harsh criticism ...as for the other parts of the definition of bashing, I've yet to see anyone hit bush in any way or form...

    In reading the definition of criticize, it too includes the word "harsh"...I wonder if those who support bush are upset by the harshness of the critisim toward him....

    honestly, though, I suspect the real reason the term is used is as a diversion from the main point of critisims leveed against him..it tends to put those speaking out on the defensive rather than addressing a real response...

    anyhoo...it was something I was thinking about, and wanted to get some perspective...

    a final point...I have to respect those who continue to support bush and his policies...it's got to be hard...the list ef? put up was pretty extensive...and sad, in my opinion...
  • well, you decided to lay the blame for bin laden on clinton. im just saying bush is doing no better. clinton tried, i dont think you can fault him for not being able to pull off something that nobody has been able to pull off.


    I didnt decide to blame him. He is to blame. Not 100%, but if you refuse to give him any blame, you're more biased than Ann Coulter.

    And I had no intentions of naming names, I was asked to give an example of a problem handed to GW by past presidents. So I did.

    And if you can't fault Clinton, "for not being able to pull off something that nobody has been able to pull off", the HOW the FUCK can you blame GW???Explain please?

    Clinton critique = a no no
    Bush BASHING = free for all

    I call bullshit.
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Clinton fucked up and admits it.

    Bush fucks up and claims no faults.

    Bush is a bag licker. Fuck him.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Open wrote:
    Do u not think it would be more logical if we focused all our effort on the real threat el queda, as opposed to the supposed threat (Iraq)?


    110% yes, yes, yes,. I just dont find it productive to say FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH THAT MOTHERFUCKER. Iraq was a mistake. we went in with false information, stayed because our enemy followed us there (and we pretty much defeated them), now we are staying longer to clean up the mess we left. i.e the secratrian voilence.

    Im ready to get out of iraq and go back to afgahistan with a full force and even give pakistan a scare until we catch or kill osama and his number 2 man. then maybe we can bring everyone home, elect a new president, and find new things to bitch about.
  • yes, because he fucking deserves it.


    Thank you for your perfect example of a bush basher.
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • hippiemom wrote:
    Sheer laziness. I picked the easiest part. It's Friday.

    Ok, ok, I'll move on ....


    Every president is handed things by his predecessor, some good and some bad. Six years down the road, you can't blame your predecessor any more. You've had six years to fix what needed fixing, these things are now YOUR problems. Criticizing a president over inherited problems after 6 months in office is ridiculous ... after 6 years, it's perfectly legitimate.


    I refer you to the original topic, the difference (which there apparenlty isn't one to some here) between bashing and criticizm. Enjoy your friday. :p
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
Sign In or Register to comment.