Bush Derangement Syndrome?

[GreyICE]

Heh. As I asked uk_dave, I'll ask you: If you're going to claim that right-wingers were similar in their detestation of Bill Clinton to left-wingers' detestation of Bush, you'll prove your point by providing links to the dozens of street demonstrations with people holding up posters of Clinton in a Hitler getup and a toothbrush mustache.

And you'll further prove your point by providing links to people singing "na-na, hey-hey, good-bye" to Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001.

I'll be here, waiting.

And I'll be here waiting for evidence that people post 3 page long skreeds about how Bush killed Vince Foster.

What, equivalent doesn't mean identical?

Oh crap, reality hit its well known liberal bias again.

Oh and P.S., eat Goodbye to the Black Helicopters. Now you no longer have an argument. It just doesn't exist.

 

[peptoabysmal]

One of the symptoms of BDS is that the victims of the disease are unable to recognize it in themselves.

 

[gtc]

Oh crap, reality hit its well known liberal bias again.

Why would the fact that there were some people who hated Clinton as irrationally as some other people hated Bush mean that reality has a liberal bias?

 

[GreyICE]

Why would the fact that there were some people who hated Clinton as irrationally as some other people hated Bush mean that reality has a liberal bias?

Because reality has a well-known liberal bias.

 

[joobz]

So you're equating some lunatic-fringe right wing bloggers who think Clinton killed Vince Foster with the mobs in the streets equating Bush with Hitler?

Are you saying that there's fewer CDS than there are BDS people? I do not know how true that is. The age demographic that CDS and BDS fall into are completely different. As a result, you'd expect to see a difference in the way they display their psychoses.

BDSers protest in the streets.
CDSers listen to Savage.

 

[gtc]

Because reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Just repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

 

[GreyICE]

Just repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

Do you really not understand the origins of this phrase and why it's used whenever self-proclaimed conservatives sit there and insist that an apple is not an apple?

 

[gtc]

Do you really not understand the origins of this phrase and why it's used whenever self-proclaimed conservatives sit there and insist that an apple is not an apple?

I believe the phrase originated on the Daily Show.

But your point doesn't show that reality has a liberal bias. If anything it shows that there are extremists on both sides.

 

[GreyICE]

I believe the phrase originated on the Daily Show.

But your point doesn't show that reality has a liberal bias. If anything it shows that there are extremists on both sides.

 

[Skeptic]

Bush derangement syndrome is not the view that everything Bush does is wrong. Many people believe that about every president they dislike.

Bush derangement syndrome is the reverse: the belief that everything that ever goes wrong is Bush's fault -- including, quite literally, the weather. (As in, "global warming is due to Bush not signing the Kyoto agreement").

Bush derangement syndrome is also the belief in palpable logical contradictions merely because at first sight they make Bush look bad: e.g., the belief that Bush is, at the same time, both (a) a total idiot, and (b) and evil mastermind.

Bush derangement syndrome is also acting in two totally contraditory ways: e.g., wearing a "I hate Bush" / "[Rule 10] Republicans" button and accusing Fox News of "spreading hate", or having a "Selected not Elected"/ "Bush Knew"/ "9/11 was an inside job" bumper sticker and claiming Bush and his supporters are "paranoid".

Bush derangement syndrome is being outraged when Bush does something and then being equally outraged when he does the exact opposite -- as in the case of those who were "outraged" both at Bush's presidental pardons AND at him revoking one of those pardons the next day.

Above all, Bush derangement syndrome is not being able to see your views of Bush, no matter how extreme and absurd, as anyting but the gospel truth; as in wearing a "The only Bush I trust is my own" shirt and then getting really angry when someone accuses you for some reason of hating Bush.

 

[varwoche]

My "call for evidence" still stands, as you have provided none.

[BPSCG mockery mode] Righties are frothing lunatics, as evidenced by the many righties who called Obama a commie. And unless you can show that lefties called Bush a commie, you are dismissed. [/Bmm]

See how easy it is to draw a bulls-eye around the spot where your arrow lands?

There's another factor that would have to be considered in order for your challenge to be meaningful: The performance of the POTUS in question. That is, the worst president in modern times (e.g. Bush) would be more likely to evoke hostility than someone who was not the worst president in modern times (e.g. Clinton).

 

[GreyICE]

[BPSCG mockery mode] Righties are frothing lunatics, as evidenced by the many righties who called Obama a commie. And unless you can show that lefties called Bush a commie, you are dismissed. [/Bmm]

See how easy it is to draw a bulls-eye around the spot where your arrow lands?

There's another factor that would have to be considered in order for your challenge to be meaningful: The performance of the POTUS in question. That is, the worst president in modern times (e.g. Bush) would be more likely to evoke hostility than someone who was not the worst president in modern times (e.g. Clinton).

Or hell, we can just post more links to "Goodbye to the Black Helicopters."

It's so much fun.

Goodbye to the Black Helicopters

Goodbye to the Black Helicopters


Okay... I'll stop


Goodbye to the Black Helicopters

 

[BPSCG]

[BPSCG mockery mode] Righties are frothing lunatics, as evidenced by the many righties who called Obama a commie. And unless you can show that lefties called Bush a commie, you are dismissed. [/Bmm]

See how easy it is to draw a bulls-eye around the spot where your arrow lands?

So rather than show serious evidence of the CDS you claim exists, you find fault with mine. I think that's the same line of argument the ID people used in the Dover, Pennsylvania Kitzmiller case, that ID nuts use all the time: "Evolution doesn't explain everything, therefore creationism is true."

There's another factor that would have to be considered in order for your challenge to be meaningful: The performance of the POTUS in question. That is, the worst president in modern times (e.g. Bush)...

Actually, that would be Carter.

...would be more likely to evoke hostility than someone who was not the worst president in modern times (e.g. Clinton).

Some of Mr. Obama’s supporters booed and taunted Mr. Bush when he emerged from the Capitol to take his place on stage, at one point singing, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, hey, hey, hey, goodbye.”

(...snip...)

The departing vice president, Dick Cheney, appeared at the ceremony in a wheelchair after suffering a back injury moving the day before and was also booed.

And then there was this class act:

Later, when President Bush left the Capitol grounds in a helicopter, he received some cheers from a crowd of onlookers.

But at least one man was seen giving the chopper what Bush used to call the "one-finger salute."

Another man, with a thick New England accent, yelled, "Go back to Crawford!"

And a woman shouted, "Good riddance! He's leaving!"

Funny, I don't recall any news account of such childish behavior when Carter left office.

President Obama said in his address, "... the time has come to set aside childish things."

BDS is one of them.

This is me holding my breath:

 

[a_unique_person]

What exactly is this? I've seen a lot of right-wingers here use the term, and it seems to me like a poor attempt at whitewashing the Bush administration's..."shortcomings."

Since Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president since ratings were taken, I think it's grasping at straws.

 

[BPSCG]

Since Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president since ratings were taken, I think it's grasping at straws.

Excerpt from a secret conversation at the White House between George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama last week:

Obama nodded. “It would be nice to be my own man. To show them, show them just once.”

W. stared at the condensation on his Nehi. “You want to be your own man, the trick is to pick one thing and stick with it no matter what anybody says. With me, after 9/11, it was all about the war against the jihadis. You pick one thing and hold fast to it, you’re going to be hated worse than you can imagine.”

“This one thing,” said Obama. “You have to be right about it, though. Otherwise. . . . ”

“Clinton, he didn’t have any focus,” continued W. “Billy walks down the cafeteria line and needs a half dozen trays to hold it all, not just because of his appetite, but because he can’t stand to let a choice pass. He wants every entree, every vegetable. He wants the Jell-O mold and the pecan pie and the devil’s food cake, too. Nice thing about being him, though, you don’t get hated much, and those that do hate you, after a while they forget why. Me, there’re people on their deathbed made sure they voted absentee against me.”

“What if you’re wrong about that one thing?” persisted Obama.

“The big things, the important decisions, you may not ever know if you were right,” said W., “but you have to do what you think best, anyway.”

Never mind that , says a_u_p. Popularity is more important than anything.

Just ask Willy Loman.

 

[Cleon]

"Bush Derangement Syndrome" reminds me of the phrase "politically correct."

Neither actually means anything, they're simply empty, condescending phrases used to dismiss criticism.

A similar thing is happening (on both sides) to the phrase "talking points." Which is regrettable, because many political arguments are taken from official talking points sent out by one organization or another. But that doesn't make the argument right or wrong.

 

[a_unique_person]

Excerpt from a secret conversation at the White House between George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama last week:

Never mind that , says a_u_p. Popularity is more important than anything.

Just ask Willy Loman.

That's funny, because Bush went after Saddam, and Osama is still free.

 

[BPSCG]

"Bush Derangement Syndrome" reminds me of the phrase "politically correct."

Neither actually means anything, they're simply empty, condescending phrases used to dismiss criticism.

That is quite incorrect. It has a very clear meaning, given by the psychiatrist who first identified it:

FWIW, I very much doubt that Dr. Charles Krauthammer actually published his findings in any peer-reviewed medical journal.

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

Note that Krauthammer doesn't say merely opposing Bush or his policies is BDS. He says BDS is a paranoia - an unjustified fear.

The first example he gives in his column linked above is Howard Dean, who claimed Bush LIHOP.

Krauthammer acknowledges that Dean is an intelligent, accomplished, if humorless man, with no known prior history of delusions. And yet he believes Bush may well have known about September 11 beforehand (he says "it's the most interesting theory"). What caused this acute attack of paranoia?

 

[Cleon]

FWIW, I very much doubt that Dr. Charles Krauthammer actually published his findings in any peer-reviewed medical journal.

Yeah, no kidding. Let me know when it appears in the DSM-IV.


Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Kestrel]

If a Bush critic is making errors of fact or logic, feel free to point out those specific errors. Claiming they have "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is nothing more than a personal attack. It's no more valid than the old Soviet Union claiming that critics of the regime were insane.