Why Do People Dislike Bush?
Jammer
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Serious, no bashing.</div> I can't figure out what people have against Bush. I personally support him and think he's doing as best he can. I'm shocked some people can hold such negative opinions when, with the exception of the economy, which he really can't control, everything is going pretty good.
It seems like peoples arguments all basically branch from the 'Bush is stupid!' school of though, which offers nothing but a negative thought to justify a deep personal dislike. I can understand policy differences, but I really haven't heard of many actual complaints- just that he's dumb. I'm curious- is there anything to this beyond personal insults and high-minded rhetoric? Or is the left as intellectually bankrupt as its policies? (Oh.... BAM! :-P )
It seems like peoples arguments all basically branch from the 'Bush is stupid!' school of though, which offers nothing but a negative thought to justify a deep personal dislike. I can understand policy differences, but I really haven't heard of many actual complaints- just that he's dumb. I'm curious- is there anything to this beyond personal insults and high-minded rhetoric? Or is the left as intellectually bankrupt as its policies? (Oh.... BAM! :-P )
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
2)C student
3)(alleged)cokehead, and admitted frat boy party animal
4)he was a complete failure in business until his early 40s
5)4 words: Is our children learning?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The first thing that really got me was when he decided to raise arsenic restrictions on tap water to carcinogenic levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GW never actually RAISED arsenic restrictions, he merely overturned a last-minute Clinton decision that was sub-par and wouldn't have taken affect until 2004 anyway. What really angers me about him policy-wise is all of the programs he cut AMAZINGLY large amounts of money from, including but not limited to: federal spending on libraries(39 million cut), federal funding for research into renewable energy(50% cut), funding for cleaner car research(28% cut), The Community Access Program(86% cut), workforce training programs(200 million cut), Childcare/developement Grant(200 million cut), public housing repairs(700 million cut), EPA(1/2 billion cut), child abuse/neglect programs(15.7 million cut), etc, etc. And these are all PRE-war numbersm, imagine how much he has cut from these and other such programs now!
In the case:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Alright, number
1)he wasn't smart enough to get himself elected, he had to get his daddy's buddies and his brother to do it for him.
2)C student
3)(alleged)cokehead, and admitted frat boy party animal
4)he was a complete failure in business until his early 40s
5)4 words: Is our children learning?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is simply just trying to make Bush look bad, <i>regardless</i> of his abilities as a leader.
And AllUrHiveRBelong2Us, this is really just partisan, because, well, all politics are like this, and it hardly means anything, it's just there to influence the weak minded voter, who buys into to shameless advertising.
Really, most candidates/suppoerters will practically say anything to get your vote, and sadly it goes both ways.
And BTW. I believe Gore was the one who dropped out of Harvard, Bush graduated. True, money can get you in, but it won't get you out.
So, who's stupid now ?
2)C student
3)(alleged)cokehead, and admitted frat boy party animal
4)he was a complete failure in business until his early 40s
5)4 words: Is our children learning?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, character attacks.
1) Proof? He reuses many officals and got endorsments, but in the end people knew they were voting for Bush. As for his brother, I think you need to beleive that Jeb used Florida's secret police to stop minority voters in order to make his brother win... BS! Of course people use their connections. If Gore had one, he wouldn't have been elected on his own, he'd have been mooching off Clinton's record.
2)Ronald Regan was a C student. He defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot. Makes you wonder what he could have accomplished had he studied harder. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Bush also graduated from Yale and then from Harvard Buisness- where connections can get you in, but not out.
3) As opposed to Clinton. Oh wait, nevermind, he admitted to it on MTV. Presidents are people, and Bush has outgrown his past.
4) True. But he was successful in his late 40's :-D
5) Bush is dyslexic. And that has what relevance?
The rest of your complaints are totally valid though, although I disagree about the problem in the cuts, siince I'm a supporter of small government
Is it?
For a lot of people, the economy is a huge deal, and it's just now barely beginning to <i>crawl</i> out of the toilet. Considering the whole economic downspiral began <i>the exact day that Bush was declared the presidential 'winner'</i>, it's not too difficult to see why quite a few people had bad feelings about the guy even before the Iraq situation. This, by the way, is not my personal view. It's just an observation of the state of things and not a difficult leap in conjecture to make, when it comes to most of the people to whom you are referring.
Add to this the way that most of the rest of the world now perceives this figurehead, and detests his <i>apparent</i> decisions (see below about shared responsibility), and it's not too hard to see why so many of his own countrymen aren't very happy with the guy.
Also, he's not the brightest bulb on the shelf, he's got a miserable public presence, he's a poor speaker, and you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to reasonably argue otherwise. When it comes down to it, however, none of this really matters that much. He's simply an easy target for people who aren't happy with the way things are going, even though he is only responsible in a very tiny way. There are plenty of others who helped make things to be the way they are today, both positively and negatively, but since they don't see much of the spotlight, it's easier for most to place the blame on the guy who does.
Do I think he's an idiot? I suspect so, but then, I'd be just as content with Bobo the gorilla in the oval office. The trainers are the ones calling the shots anyway. Viva la Checks & Balances!
Now that is some **** right there. I don't want to turn this into an ivy league grade inflation discussion, but one of my friends is at Yale at the moment. You can fail every test in a course and get out with a C-. It is a party school.
**** if I know. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Back to Bush.
I think Bush is an excellent speaker. The problem arises when he tries to speak off the cuff. On planned speeches like Sept 20th 01, he was incredible I thought. But when he's reading a speach with little practice, he goofs up, etc.
And to say the economy tanked when he was declared winner proves it isn't his fault, as none of his policies had been implemented. This is Clinton's recession, no doubt about it.
And I disagree about Bush being 'controlled'- its a little too conspiracy thriller for me, especially if you consider his leadership style. He sets a vision, tells his aides to present their opinons, and then decides. He is smart enough to realize he can't know everything about a situation, so he relies on advisors... seen as controlled by others. Clinton wanted power over everything. Bush is content to know his limits.
So, who's stupid now ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You assume that I think Gore is more intelligent or a batter person. You assume wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is simply just trying to make Bush look bad, regardless of his abilities as a leader.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when is this topic about GW's abilty as a leader? This about why people dislike him, and although I don't think he's good leader, I don't base THAT opinion on how dumb I think he is. I have looked at his actions, and I havn't found many that I like but that's not the issue here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) Proof? He reuses many officals and got endorsments, but in the end people knew they were voting for Bush. As for his brother, I think you need to beleive that Jeb used Florida's secret police to stop minority voters in order to make his brother win... BS! Of course people use their connections. If Gore had one, he wouldn't have been elected on his own, he'd have been mooching off Clinton's record. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOT BS! Fact: an outside firm was hired by Jeb to determine who was a felon, this outside firm used some rather "odd" tactics to figure out who could and could not vote. Their system kept people with similar names, birthdates, and Social Security numbers from voting. The head of the Florida State voting commision was told by this firm that she was, in fact, a felon and could not vote(she wasn't). There is also the matter of the many military ballots that did not have the proper dateing or witnesses to be admisable, but yet they were.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2)Ronald Regan was a C student. He defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot. Makes you wonder what he could have accomplished had he studied harder.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ronie didn't defeat the USSR, Stalin did.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3) As opposed to Clinton. Oh wait, nevermind, he admitted to it on MTV. Presidents are people, and Bush has outgrown his past.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You think I believe Clinton was a saint? I know he wasn't, but you cannot just say "that's all in the past" and expect people to forget it. It don't work that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4) True. But he was successful in his late 40's :-D
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because his pop gave him a baseball team(after giving several oil ventures to ruin)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5) Bush is dyslexic. And that has what relevance?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whenever you hear people reference this, it's usually just a joke. Sorry if the sarcasm didn't come through.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And to say the economy tanked when he was declared winner proves it isn't his fault, as none of his policies had been implemented. This is Clinton's recession, no doubt about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One cannot blam recessions on a single president. Recessions are a natural part of this little economic system we call "capitalism" (although if you really wanna get technical we're starting to lean toward the socialist side, but that's another matter)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, political partisan/bias might possibly prove to be the downfall of American democracy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Politcal partisanism is the BASIS of American Democracy and, indeed, ALL democracies.
I'm at a loss for words. First of all, political partisan in the terms of "I don't like Bush, because he's a republican". End of discussion, regardless of talents/abilities and so on and so forth.
Dictionary.com : <i>Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics</i>
How would that be the basis of American democracy ?
I'm at a loss for words. First of all, political partisan in the terms of "I don't like Bush, because he's a republican". End of discussion, regardless of talents/abilities and so on and so forth.
Dictionary.com : <i>Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics</i>
How would that be the basis of American democracy ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This coutrie's government was basically founded(although not literally, I will admit) with parties, and up until recently these parties have been different.
The reality of the vote scrubbing that took place is horrifying. Nevermind that the previous private company was paid in the neighborhood of $5500 to purge the voter rolls of ineligible voters, and suddenly Choicepoint DBT(a company with heavy GOP ties) was awarded a $2.7 million dollar contract (without fielding counterbids) to do very similar work.
Nevermind that the Texas state government handed CP DBT a list that contained some 8,000 relocated Texan 'felons' to remove from the Florida voter registration. Unfortunately, it was later discovered that they were only guilty of misdemeanors and thus should have held onto their vote. Whoops!
Nevermind that their algorithms for matching names were a bit flexible, to say the least. Some of the names that they matched are just astounding. Also, the fact that their algorithm ignored things like 'Jr.', 'Sr.', and the spelling, but put a premium on race-- thus, a black voter who had a partial match to a black felon would get scrubbed, where a white voter with the same data would not (and yes, it works in the other direction, but don't kid yourself-- there is a much higher percentage of blacks in American prisons, and this definitely favors the repubs, since black voters in Florida supported Gore to the tune of 93%).
Nevermind that ex-felons were sent a letter from the Florida state gov't which told them that they were required to seek executive clemency from Jeb before they could vote again (which was not the case-- in fact, actually requiring this would have been illegal according to Florida court rulings). A new version was released immediately following the elections, during an investigation by the U.S. Civil Rights Commision which told them that they did <i>not</i> have to do any such thing.
It goes on and on . . . if you're not shaking your head sadly over that debacle, then you don't know enough about it. Gore lost Florida by a narrow margin of 547 votes. Even with all the manipulation, the repubs <i>only</i> won by 547 votes.
But I'm sure this is all paranoia . . . I mean, Katherine Harris certainly didn't look all smug and self satisfied when she got to announce Bush as the winner. Nope, not one bit. (Also, before you scream 'crazy conspiracy theory!', all of this information is verified and incredibly easy to locate out there. If you need help, give me a holler and I'll point you in the right direction).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think Bush is an excellent speaker. The problem arises when he tries to speak off the cuff. On planned speeches like Sept 20th 01, he was incredible I thought. But when he's reading a speach with little practice, he goofs up, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So . . . when he's reading someone else's words off of a teleprompter, he's just fine, but when he's forced to think on his own two feet and apply his own language, he falls apart? Right . . . I'm going to maintain that this in fact makes him a terrible speaker.
So . . . when he's reading someone else's words off of a teleprompter, he's just fine, but when he's forced to think on his own two feet and apply his own language, he falls apart? Right . . . I'm going to maintain that this in fact makes him a terrible speaker. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've heard that his dyslexia problem means he gets fed his lines through an earpiece since he can't read the telepromter well. It would also explain why he pauses after almost every sentence.
I stand corrected. Still, I maintain that he is a poor speaker. If all he can do is listen to someone else's words and then spit them back out well, he's a good repeater. Which isn't much of a feat-- my 18 month old nephew is getting quite good at that.
Gore actually paid highly trained CIA monkies to inflitarate homes and secretly brainwash people to vote for him. The same team fo Covert-Ops monkeys were used to break into polling places and reattach the chads to some of Bush's votes. Gore also hired a company to run interference with the mail helicpoters transporting Bush's military votes to Florida so they wouldn't be received in time to be counted. I've heard that the monkeys from above owned part of the company, but I can't back that up.
So yes, I'm a hollerin'!
And a reputable news source, not <a href='http://www.democraticunderground.com' target='_blank'>crazy</a> <a href='http://www.michaelmoore.com' target='_blank'>left-winger's blog</a>.
Politics is a dirty buisness. Gore's people were out in Floridia handing out cigarettes to homeless people to vote... or so I've heard, as is most of this 'Bush stole the election' tripe.
EDIT:
Mods, lock? This thread isn't turning out the way I'd hope. Its mostly just conspiracy theories, name calling, and the same old Anti-Bush rhetoric we've heard since he 'stole' the election.
Edit: <a href='http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html' target='_blank'>This</a> has some of the same info, but some things more specific to the felon end of it.
Also, if you'd like to see the US Civil Rights Comission's report on the situation, check <a href='http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>.
When you'd like me to scan in copies of the letter, let me know.
That's a convenient stance to take, though-- you didn't actually discount anything I offered, or offer evidence supporting the contrary. You just did the internet equivalent of "'fraid not!"
Edit: Nice ploy, too-- labeling anything contrary to your taste as a 'conspiracy theory' and telling the mods to lock the thread before you have to, oh, produce evidence supporting your claims. If you'd like to take another page out of Bush's book, remind me that I'm being 'unpatriotic' as well.
Nicely done.
Further Edit:
I haven't said that dems are clean by comparison. Hardly. You asked why I don't like George Bush, and I think there's more than enough evidence to show that something was rotten in the state of Florida. What's the point of asking 'Why don't you like George Bush?', and then pshaw-ing every reply as a consipracy theory, a blind partisan attack, or something that's just plain wrong?
in the 2000 election 10% of all ballots cast in the us were discarded.
this is from fair.org which is left win as my left [ male organ]
bush = son of previous president using all teh same people as his father
every major cabinet member worked for his dad.
texas god that state sux:)
i dont believe in executing retrded people for any reson having known a few.
preemption
ABM policy
etc etc
/ runs off
Preach it brotha monkey!
I've been saying that on these boards for months but no one's been listening, or maybe I just wasn't around when people listened.
what I want to know is what MonsE thinks about George Bush
Why I dislike Bush:
I do not believe ANY MONEY SHOULD EVER flow into private religious coffers. The faith based initiatives are a law respecting religion and unconstitutional.
Texas has a horrable education record. It litterally dropped to the bottom of the state rankings, below Arkansas. Huston Texas now has the worst air quality in the US. Texas leads the US and is ahead of most of the nations in the WORLD in capital punishment.
His familly riches are based on financial contributions to the Nazi war machine.
His personal riches are based on the fleecing of the taxpayers of Texas.
Why Bush should not be president:
There is a HUGE conflict of interest between Bush and most of his staff and major corporations. Bush has failed to curtail corporate corruption.
Thus this conflict of interest causes major problems with our current operations in Iraq NO MATTER the true motivation the current administration should be recused from decision making in the matter.
His staff has shredded personal freedom from unreasonable search and siezure.
I could spend hours recalling and researching exactly why I dislike Bush, and the above are the few points that pop out as the most egregious at this moment.
Aside from the facts BM and Relic already brought together, take a look <a href='http://www.enron.com/corp/' target='_blank'>here</a>.
Then, read <a href='http://www.progress.org/archive/drc12.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> and keep in mind what the Bush legislation does to people doing the <i>exactely same thing</i>.
After that, take a look at his closest advisors:
A woman who had an <a href='http://www.progress.org/archive/drc12.htm' target='_blank'>oil tanker named after her</a>.
A secretary of justice <a href='http://www.arc.org/C_Lines/CLArchive/story6_1_06.html' target='_blank'>against whom Dan Quayle looks like a moderate left winger</a>.
A secretary of defense who <a href='http://213.84.233.194/rumsfeld/IMGA1558.JPG' target='_blank'>shook hands with the devil</a>.
And a vice president <a href='http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.01G.Cheney.Memo.htm' target='_blank'>who's just as good as his president</a>.
Bush and the people he brought into office are corrupt, power hungry, and so far from trustworthy that they're starting to get near it from the other way round.
Before you start getting the defense of relative dirt out, yes, the Dems are just as bad. Does that make the situation <i>any</i> better?
Dyslexia cannot be used as an easy excuse for every linguistical mistake. This mental condition affects only spelling and reading skills, not the ability to speak. And with sufficient training, a dyslexic person should easily be able to decypher a speech from a teleprompter, especially if he practices his delivery as carefully as Bush supposedly does.
I'm nobody who believes lazyness is a very bad character trait, but if you're the president of the friggin US, it can become a little problem.
"i'm gonna take these terrorists and place them in my lockbox."
First off, two very different things, I do not dislike Bush, but I don't think he does a good job.
Let's start on this disliking stuff here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1)he wasn't smart enough to get himself elected, he had to get his daddy's buddies and his brother to do it for him.
2)C student
3)(alleged)cokehead, and admitted frat boy party animal
4)he was a complete failure in business until his early 40s
5)4 words: Is our children learning?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to say all these things, apart from number 1) in my eyes make Bush actually more likable (is that a word?). Beeing a C student doesn't meen you are stupid, it can just as well hint at beeing bored with the strictness of the scholar take on things (getting very fuzzy here). Party animal and cokehead meens he had a good time while he was young and had his share of "stupid things kids do". Having failed in business meens he knows how it is to lose and loosing brings valuable experiences. Beeing a bad speaker probably isn't a good thing for a president, but most people are.
All these things do not disqualify for president in my eyes. You don't have to be top of the notch in everything to have good ideas or be kind and stuff... This is not the middle ages, where the king was elected by god and considered flawless.
Now about Bush and his actions. Since Bush has been in office the US government has ignored world opinion more than ever before. I'm not saying it is him personally, but it has definitly started when he became president. I really dislike this new take on foreign policy which is more of a command and conquer (no pun intended) strategy.
I can't really say anything about the new way internal politics are handled, living in a different country after all, but if what AllYourHive said, is true than I can see why many US citizens dislike Bush as well. One thing I do know though is that all the money for the war has to come from somewhere and whereever that is, the money would be spent a whole lot better there.
I can't say that I dislike Bush because he is a Republican because somehow I still couldn't figure out a significant difference between the two parties. When it comes to foreign policy they seem quite alike usually. So, usually, I couldn't care less, if there was a Democrat or a Republican in charge, since it only concerns national politics within the US. Usually. The Bush administration however has taken avery different aproach on foreign policy and a very... uh.... "wrong" one in my opninion.
If I happen to to say something bad about Bush it is usually ment towards the whole government, but is frankly a lot easier to simply write Bush.