Would you vote for George Bush

[Darth Rotor]

Trans Texas Corridor. One of good hair's pet projects.

Not so keen on that one.

I read somewhere (forgot where, I'm sure it can the article can be found online) about a connection to drug company lobbyists.

Yep, Merck lobbyists, one of whom was IIRC The Hair's chief of staff.

DR

 

[fuelair]

That Bush inspires such irrational hatred in people who hold Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, and Arafat in high regard means he must be doing something so bloody wonderful that I would vote for him again in a NY minute.

No, I don't like everything about him. He's too fundy, he's makes too many mistakes he won't own. Other than that, when I see people so demented that they'd burn troops in effigy or crap on the flag while wearing disguises and chanting their desire to murder...when I see that these "people" hate Bush...well it reaffirms my vote.

He isn't the best President ever....but if "billydkid" hates him he can't be all bad.

-z

Fortunately, I hate shrub coldly and rationally - so I would have no problem executing your list of criminal slime or Robespierre or Lumumba (were they not already well dead -except the Ca and Ch clowns). So, it's certain you aren't talking about me. Shrub is just a little Democracy away from being able to get away with their kind of crap. I agree even with what you say about the limited number of anti-war crazies who do the things you describe - but that is not close to a majority of the people who are re/denouncing the war and loathe Bush while supporting our soldiers - and sometimes even Iraqui freedom - but not at the expense of OUR soldiers.

 

[RandFan]

...I hate shrub coldly and rationally ...

Which is to say that your emotional response is rational. I guess that is possible but emotional responses would cause me to question ones rational.

 

[Tony]

Just curious fualair, what's your beef against Robespierre?

 

[fuelair]

I would be seriously tempted to vote for Dubya just because it would be such an obscenely perverse thing to do. I would do it in the same spirit as a person scarifying themselves with razors or coat hanger brands. I would do it out of spite. It would be the same impulse as might compel me to force myself to eat raw habanero peppers until I vomited. I would do it out of self hatred. It's a mood thing.


?

Actually, my suspicion is that if you ate raw habanero peppers, you would need to worry more about the terminus of your digestive system as some would very likely pass beyond the stomach before the others made the return trip.

 

[wolfgirl]

Irrational and vehement hatred of Mr. Bush is a bizarre phenomenon of our times. It's hipster herd mentality, a kind of wooism that even the big-brained JREFers are drawn to in credulous unison. (see poll results for data) Just goes to show that no matter how smart you are you can be made to frog-march in the direction your knee jerks.

I personally take offense at the idea that all Bush-haters only hate him because it is somehow socially acceptable to do so now. I have hated him right from the start!

When he ran the first time, I remember saying things like, "I don't know what kind of trouble he's going to get us into, but we're going to be sorry if we put him in office."

I have consistently refused to call him the president from the very beginning; he's just "Bush" to me. On a good day.

I opposed the war from the very start, and I resent all of the people who have so recently climbed on the anti-war bandwagon but who still somehow found it in themselves to vote for him not once but TWICE! (I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "How You Like Him Now?") Where were you all when we needed you, when you could've made the difference and voted him out of office once we'd seen what a disaster he was? Why was somebody as simple as I am able to see the lies for what they were?

I wrote letters to the editor practically BEGGING people not to vote for him, explaining that he was determined to remake the face of the Supreme Court, which would have consequences long after he left office.

He makes my blood boil. I can feel my blood pressure rise just by seeing him on television or hearing his voice on the radio. I can't stand him. I have disliked presidents in the past, but never have I felt this strongly. Hate is definitely not too strong of a word to describe how I feel about him.

But I have felt this from before he was ever elected. So please don't tell me that I am part of some "herd mentality" or that I am drawn to some "credulous unison" or that my feelings are a "knee-jerk reaction." I hated Bush long before it was cool to do so. A fact of which I am eminently proud.

(deep breaths...in...out...in...out...)

 

[RandFan]

When he ran the first time, I remember saying things like, "I don't know what kind of trouble he's going to get us into, but we're going to be sorry if we put him in office."

Hi Wolfgirl,

I would be willing to respect, to some degree, that you disagreed with Bush's politics in the beginning and by the end found that his actions demonstrated to you that he was inept, foolish, dishonest or whatever.

I have to be honest though, I have a damn hard time accepting that you knew from the beginning. This sound awfully woo to me and I can only say that once you make this claim then any analysis you make would be circumspect since it could be argued to be self fulfilling, post hoc reasoning. You seem to be going out of your way to prove rik right.

This is why I have a very hard time accepting the analysis of most people. It seems very contrary to what skepticism is all about.

He makes my blood boil. I can feel my blood pressure rise just by seeing him on television or hearing his voice on the radio. I can't stand him. I have disliked presidents in the past, but never have I felt this strongly. Hate is definitely not too strong of a word to describe how I feel about him.

I can only say that I hope I never become so overcome by negative emotion.

 

[Roswell-Perseis]

But I have felt this from before he was ever elected. So please don't tell me that I am part of some "herd mentality" or that I am drawn to some "credulous unison" or that my feelings are a "knee-jerk reaction." I hated Bush long before it was cool to do so. A fact of which I am eminently proud.

(deep breaths...in...out...in...out...)

No, hating Bush is herd mentality. Defending Bush is not. Obviously, when something hits the main stream, it is no longer skeptical.

 

[hgc]

Hi Wolfgirl,

I would be willing to respect, to some degree, that you disagreed with Bush's politics in the beginning and by the end found that his actions demonstrated to you that he was inept, foolish, dishonest or whatever.

I have to be honest though, I have a damn hard time accepting that you knew from the beginning. This sound awfully woo to me and I can only say that once you make this claim then any analysis you make would be circumspect since it could be argued to be self fulfilling, post hoc reasoning. You seem to be going out of your way to prove rik right.

This is why I have a very hard time accepting the analysis of most people. It seems very contrary to what skepticism is all about.

I can only say that I hope I never become so overcome by negative emotion.

This post represents an interesting strain, also found in high echelon punditry, wherein those who were right about Bush or about Iraq are wrong anyway, because they supposedly had no way of knowing. Just another flavor of black is white, up is down -- right is wrong.

 

[RandFan]

This post represents an interesting strain, also found in high echelon punditry, wherein those who were right about Bush or about Iraq are wrong anyway, because they supposedly had no way of knowing. Just another flavor of black is white, up is down -- right is wrong.

But that is not my position and I most certianly am not making any such argument.

 

[IllegalArgument]

No, hating Bush is herd mentality. Defending Bush is not. Obviously, when something hits the main stream, it is no longer skeptical.

Yes, it is! No, it isn't.

Oh, no if the mainstream, what ever the means, agrees on something, it can't be skeptical!

What in the world does that mean?

 

[fuelair]

Just curious fualair, what's your beef against Robespierre?

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/robespierre.html

Just my silly predjudices against murders/terrorists whether voted in or not, whether thought of as freedom fighters or not. The above is just an intro to the slime with minor mention of some of his co-rectums. French Revolution - unlike the much more civilised A. R. -was nothing but a cycle of violence, cruelty, lies, incivility, anti-intellectualism and general evil.

This is not to say that the Royalty and Church were beacons of shining light, but................

Should add my list is much longer - I pulled R and L from a Jefferson Airplane anthem for (mostly) rectums (unfortunate since I mostly enjoy Jefferson Airplane). Left out others who either were not rectums about "freedom fighting" or are questionable (R. was, Danton there is argument about).

 

[SezMe]

I would be willing to respect, to some degree, that you disagreed with Bush's politics in the beginning and by the end found that his actions demonstrated to you that he was inept, foolish, dishonest or whatever.

I won't claim NEAR the certainty that wolfgirl claims, but I do claim to have had serious doubts about his presidential qualifications from the get go. As I remember, his only real claim that I found reasonable was that he was a "uniter, not a divider" based on his performance as Texas governor. Other than that, there was not much there, there.

 

[SezMe]

Obviously, when something hits the main stream, it is no longer skeptical.

No, it's not "obvious". In fact, the only thing that is obvious about that statement is that it is asinine. As an obvious example, disbelief in UFOs is mainstream yet is the skeptical position to take. Ditto all the 911 conspiracies.

 

[RandFan]

I won't claim NEAR the certainty that wolfgirl claims, but I do claim to have had serious doubts about his presidential qualifications from the get go. As I remember, his only real claim that I found reasonable was that he was a "uniter, not a divider" based on his performance as Texas governor. Other than that, there was not much there, there.

Yeah, I swallowed that line hook line and sinker. Tricky disabused me of that notion.

 

[latent aaaack]

Hi Wolfgirl,

I would be willing to respect, to some degree, that you disagreed with Bush's politics in the beginning and by the end found that his actions demonstrated to you that he was inept, foolish, dishonest or whatever.

I have to be honest though, I have a damn hard time accepting that you knew from the beginning. This sound awfully woo to me and I can only say that once you make this claim then any analysis you make would be circumspect since it could be argued to be self fulfilling, post hoc reasoning. You seem to be going out of your way to prove rik right.

This is why I have a very hard time accepting the analysis of most people. It seems very contrary to what skepticism is all about.

I can only say that I hope I never become so overcome by negative emotion.

Someone could oppose a candidate based on either his/her perception that:

-the candidate's political positions will harm the country.

-people who hold such positions are more likely to be poor leaders in less predictable ways by for example lack of intelligence, dishonesty, and emotional instability.

-the individual candidate himself has such negative qualities based on observations of his speech, his ideas, his ability to express of his ideas, his personal and occupational background, his actions, his emotional actions and temperment, the people and movements he associates with, and so on.

I understand why you might disagree with the application of those negative assessments and I don't know what observations wolfgirl employed to come to her conclusion but what would be 'woo' about correctly assessing a candidate based on any of those grounds?

 

[wolfgirl]

Hi Wolfgirl,

I would be willing to respect, to some degree, that you disagreed with Bush's politics in the beginning and by the end found that his actions demonstrated to you that he was inept, foolish, dishonest or whatever.

I have to be honest though, I have a damn hard time accepting that you knew from the beginning. This sound awfully woo to me and I can only say that once you make this claim then any analysis you make would be circumspect since it could be argued to be self fulfilling, post hoc reasoning. You seem to be going out of your way to prove rik right.

I don't mean that I knew in any sort of "woo" way. I simply mean that I felt very strongly that he would be inept and worse, based on his past performance and simply the content of his character as best I could tell from seeing him talk and in debates and such. He just struck me as insincere at best and a liar at worst. Not to mention his religious leanings. And his "service" in the National Guard during Vietnam, while decrying Clinton as a draft-dodger. And the fact that I believed him to be someone who had gotten everything he has by virtue of his father (daddy gave him a baseball team, which he screwed up, then daddy gave him an oil company to run, which he screwed up, etc.). And...and...and...the list goes on. Bottom line, I just didn't trust him.

And that annoying smirk! (Don't you just want to slap him every time he does that? No? How can you not? Argh!)
And I don't think my analysis of what's happened is self-fulfilling prophecy, as so many people who voted for him have come to the same conclusions.

I didn't make him start a war over a lie, totally bungle its execution, appoint conservative justices to the SCOTUS, fire USAs for political reasons, find weasely ways to condone torture with the help of his loyal sidekick the AG, etc., etc., etc. All I'm doing it noticing it. I suppose I could quit listening to the news and ignore it. Then perhaps I wouldn't know what he's done and thus, not be able to hate him for it.

I can only say that I hope I never become so overcome by negative emotion.

I hope I never have to be again, too!

I'm embarrassed for us as a country that this idiot is our "leader." (Like when he said "Yo, Blair!" (that's how you address the leader of another country?) and then proceeded to yap at him with his open mouth full of food - an embarrassment if there ever was one.)

Once the reign of George II is over, hopefully, I can go back to my usual peaceful, quiet and reserved self.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Suppose you were asked a hypothetical question --- would you answer it?

That's hilarious!!

 

[RandFan]

Someone could oppose a candidate based on either his/her perception that:

-the candidate's political positions will harm the country.

-people who hold such positions are more likely to be poor leaders in less predictable ways by for example lack of intelligence, dishonesty, and emotional instability.

-the individual candidate himself has such negative qualities based on observations of his speech, his ideas, his ability to express of his ideas, his personal and occupational background, his actions, his emotional actions and temperment, the people and movements he associates with, and so on.

I don't necassarily disagree but this has nothing to do with my point.

I understand why you might disagree with the application of those negative assessments and I don't know what observations wolfgirl employed to come to her conclusion but what would be 'woo' about correctly assessing a candidate based on any of those grounds?

Post hoc reasoning.

Assuming that she was right, and I'm not necassarily agreeing, she happaned to be right. Woos do that all of the time. It's anecdoatal and proves nothing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I hope you realize why I didn't answer it.

I got the joke.

DR

But not the point, eh?