Why are you asking them questions like this>  if they're anti-Bush, meaning they don't like him, of course they're not going to come up with positive things about him! 

Did you think before you posted this article?  Or did you fail to engage brain before applying fingers to keyboard?

Well, I'm trying to prove a theory of mine. That there is no such thing as a rational, logical, intelligent anti bush person. IMO its all about hate, perhaps there is an underlying problem that creates their hate. Perhaps?

Why are you asking them questions like this> if they're anti-Bush, meaning they don't like him, of course they're not going to come up with positive things about him! Did you think before you posted this article? Or did you fail to engage brain before applying fingers to keyboard?

Quit beating on him for this Karen...I have seen "exactly" the same kind of posts and or replies from MM, drguy, myself and others here on JU. Yet I have "never" seen you say things like this to the others.

Quit beating on him for this Karen...I have seen "exactly" the same kind of posts and or replies from MM, drguy, myself and others here on JU. Yet I have "never" seen you say things like this to the others.

--Its not a problem, i've learned to deal with it. I see i've attracted a satirist. "Wonderful!" (Can you feel the sarcasm...)

Quit beating on him for this Karen...I have seen "exactly" the same kind of posts and or replies from MM, drguy, myself and others here on JU. Yet I have "never" seen you say things like this to the others.

Excuse me? Who the heck are you to tell me to quit beating on anybody? And, fyi, this isn't 'beating'. He asked a question on another blog, and I responded here and there. Oh, and I have spoken to "OTHER" people like this as well.

Elindel,

In a debate, it is not the responsibility of the debater to prove their opponent's position. That's the responsibility of their OPPONENT.

As a Libertarian, I have stated PLENTY of occasions where Bush acted correctly. Unfortunately, most of the times he has acted correctly, he has backpedaled once he has come under fire from the liberals.

EXAMPLE: In the wake of the tsunami, he offered $35 million in aid. As soon as this amount was deemed "stingy", he increased it tenfold. This is in defiance of the fiscal conservatism that he and the GOP have long professed to hold dear to their beliefs.

Dharma, Dr.M, come on guys, don't fight... there's no use.

Elindel,In a debate, it is not the responsibility of the debater to prove their opponent's position. That's the responsibility of their OPPONENT.As a Libertarian, I have stated PLENTY of occasions where Bush acted correctly. Unfortunately, most of the times he has acted correctly, he has backpedaled once he has come under fire from the liberals.EXAMPLE: In the wake of the tsunami, he offered $35 million in aid. As soon as this amount was deemed "stingy", he increased it tenfold. This is in defiance of the fiscal conservatism that he and the GOP have long professed to hold dear to their beliefs.

-This really wasn't intended to be a "debate".

But, I do realize that you have. I was specifically leaning towards, kingbee, dabe, etc... (Don't know if they are grounded or not)

Name three instances when bush responded/acted effectively and/or correctly. (In your opinion) (i.e. 9/11, abuse charges,etc...) Name three policies of bush's that (during his 2000 campaign) you agreed with, and state why (if you do ) you disagree with them. Name three positive aspects of Bush. (Truly positive, not crap)

Well, as a Canadain, I'm not too up on his domestic policies or the scandal of the day in America (Valerie who? from the what? Don't bother), but most of the things I can think of are "it could have been worse" or "Kerry is just/almost as bad." And I'm not even going to attempt the 2000 campaign one.

Lets see here...There was a fairly good sized donation to the tsunami, however I'm not sure if they actually followed through with the money they pledged.

He opposes affirmative action, which I do as well (to me it's not a matter of black vs. white, it's rich vs. poor, or bourgoisie vs. proletartiat).

On policy towards Canada, he is probably a lot nicer to us than Kerry would have been in terms of trade (judging from what he said on the campaign trail).

And that's about it. Of course, my list of negatives is much longer than that, but I won't share them.

Well, I'm trying to prove a theory of mine. That there is no such thing as a rational, logical, intelligent anti bush person. IMO its all about hate, perhaps there is an underlying problem that creates their hate. Perhaps?

Over here! Just because I happen to disagree with him on almost every issue (He's a capitalist conservative who believes in government enforcement of Christian values, I'm a liberal atheist socialist (and I'm willing to bet the most liberal on JU)), doesn't mean I'm not rational, logical or intelligent. We just have extremely different thought processes. It's not that I hate him, I just disagree with almost everything he stands for, and am willing to critize him for it (and maybe joke about the latest stupid quote, but if you saw me say "they misunderestimated me" on TV, wouldn't you laugh too?).

I don't get why the questions, as worded, are directed to those who are anti-bush.

1. I can't name three instances of Bush acting correctly. I supported his decision to go to war in Afghanistan. I also agreed with the Steel tariff. Steel is too important to national security to allow it to fall victim to free trade. His utter contempt towards securing the border and those who demand it, his ignorant belief that the Middle East can be fixed with a touch of democracy, his support for affirmative action, his cronyism and support for incompetents, his wild spending are just a few of the reasons he is a chump.

2. I don't recall much of his 2000 platform, other than his call for compassionate conservatism, which angered me beyond belief. That, to me, is code for "liberal reform." Since then I've hardly been proven wrong on that account.

3. There's nothing truly positive, given his Office. If he was a college friend, he'd be alright, but he's not.


Now if you asked the opposite questions, you'll get a mixture of responses ranging from sensible, reality-based reasons, all the way to irrational, knee-jerk, hateful responses.

latour, as honest as he is liberal (and yes Latour, socialist is liberal), is the only one that has responded. Part of the problem is that some of them are in their rooms. Some of them are mourning their lost youth. And the rest of them cant answer you.

1. Going into Afghanistan.

2. The No Child Left Behind program is wonderful...that is the program itself. However, the lack of federal funds to support it is unfortunate.

3. The appointment of John Roberts.

I could name a lot of smaller things I've agreed with as well. Unfortunately, there are many more major issues that I do not agree with decisions/actions he and his administration has taken.

Wow, I'm suprised i got these responses. And thanks for letting me know about that Dr. G. Guess i picked a bad time to ask.

I think this is a 'good challenge' in a way. Although I disagree with the basic premise that all those that oppose Bush are motivated simply by hatred I still think its a useful question to ask. (Frankly I think the idea that "there is no such thing as a rational, logical, intelligent anti bush person. IMO its all about hate", is the product of an immature mind).

My own political position is based on the idea that no one side has a monopoly of truth. The most sophisticated political thinkers here are not the ones who always side with one side or the other; seeing what good there might be in the 'opposing' side's ideas is a mark of a certain degree of intellectual and moral sophistication.

My own definition of a political moderate (and I am militantly moderate ) is someone who looks at both sides, sees that the question is complex, sees the areas where one side is right, and those where the other side is right, but finally has to plump for one option or the other, choosing what we consider to be the bad rather than the worse. Sometimes it seems as if only a minority here are that sophisticated.

In the folder I keep for possible future JU articles is an idea that I might yet write on. The idea is to take a politician that I loathe and try to write an essay in defence of that person's ideas, trying as hard as I can to enter into their worldview. I don't consider this merely an intellectual exercise, but a serious challenge to my own complacency and a useful enlargement of my human empathy.

I have to apologise for not answering the question directly. I don't know enough about US politics to come up with the required three things, so kudos to latour for answering the question as asked.

there is no such thing as a rational, logical, intelligent anti bush person. IMO its all about hate

Well, the way i worded it was poor. I was specifically meaning such bloggers here as dabe, etc... but, anyway...

[quoteM]y own definition of a political moderate (and I am militantly moderate ) is someone who looks at both sides, sees that the question is complex, sees the areas where one side is right, and those where the other side is right, but finally has to plump for one option or the other, choosing what we consider to be the bad rather than the worse. Sometimes it seems as if only a minority here are that sophisticated.

-yeah, at times i'm like that...

In the folder I keep for possible future JU articles is an idea that I might yet write on. The idea is to take a politician that I loathe and try to write an essay in defence of that person's ideas, trying as hard as I can to enter into their worldview. I don't consider this merely an intellectual exercise, but a serious challenge to my own complacency and a useful enlargement of my human empathy.

Kudos on that, i couldn't do it.

I have to apologise for not answering the question directly. I don't know enough about US politics to come up with the required three things, so kudos to latour for answering the question as asked. Ehh, pick a candidate, any candidate.... 15 ----- on Oct 15, 2005 Latour: EindelWolf's challenge Linkwhere he put forward a similar challenge (except the opposite) for anti-Bush people, then said that if we didn't come up with three positive things, three policies from his 2000 campaign, etc, all people who dislike Bush are basically irrational morons who are full of hate. --I never said that everyone who dislike bush are morons,etc... Thos who are irrationaly anti bush. Col gene, Dabe, etc... They won't admit anything positive (as far as i have seen) about bush. According to them, he's always wrong. Does that sound rational? Or logical? 2 Pages1 2 Next    Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us. There are many great features available to you once you register, including: Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums. Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest. Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails. It's simple, and FREE! Sign Up Now! Meta Views » 3519 Comments » 23 Category » Politics Comment Recent Article Comments LightStar Design Windowblind... I need a joke today The national debt. Let's see your political mem... Is it just me?? Saying "Hi" Let's start a New Jammin Thr... Climate Change Zealots v2.5 & Warlords Expansion Gu... Quick thoughts on Warlords f... Sponsored Links Terms of Service Privacy Policy About Us Contact Us Stardock.com © 2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved. JoeUser v1.0.0.0