Do you hate George W. Bush?

[james harrigan]

I'm always surprised when people who endlessly insult our President say that they don't hate him. Do you?

[Dennis Gonzalez]

I'll quote myself from another thread and speak for my family - oh, and they insult Dubya all the time...I guess I do too! : I'll tell you someone who seriously hates Bush: my wife and kids. They (and me somewhat) are extremely liberal and have family values out the wazoo - married to one woman for 30 years? boys still come home as often as possible? we play in the same band? They just hate not only him personally but his policies and his swagger. and his horseshit that leads people to put together what some purport to be horseshit in the original article that started this thread. And they won't say, "well, I really don't hate him..." They honestly deeply do.

Oh and do you know what else we say? "He's not our President! Ha!

We also walk around the house and randomly intone some of his words: "terr'rist" "barbarians" "Amer'ca"

[stonemonkts]

Hatred of another person is a more personal matter for me, and requires a lot of energy, etc.. Thankfully I haven't had any reasons to hate anyone for a long time now.

I hate what he and his party represent, and always have. He's just one in a long line in my lifetime.

[Ron Thorne]

No, I don't hate him, James. I don't hate anyone. That would require a lot of wasteful, negative energy. It's not a waste of energy to point out character weaknesses and/or disagree with someone's policies or approaches, however. In fact, in this instance (are you sitting down?) ... it's patriotic.

What I fail to understand is why some people can't make the seemingly obvious distinction between hatred and embarassment and frustration over Bush's ignorance, arrogance, failed/flawed policies, inability to string together coherent thoughts, etc.

He's easy to insult because of the traits mentioned above. Some praise him. I haven't seen a single reason to praise or even feel neutral about the man since he appeared on my radar screen. Not one!

[MRS]

Down with brown!

[groover]

He always comes off as likeable in person, so it's hard to hate him as an individual. I just hate having him and his misguided cohort running the country. Bush was probably fun to hang out with in his wild youth, but he's a lame hypocrite now.

[Monte Smith]

I don't hate President Bush, and I like what he and his cabinet and his party represent. I really do. And I think that what I know of Bush and the Republican party would differ from what people on this board believe about Bush and the Republican Party by about 180 degrees. I very rarely see the beliefs and opinions of conservatives done justice here, which is something that concerns me. If you cannot fairly and accurately enumerate the positions of people that you disagree with, then you are probably opposing something of a mental construction or a chimera and not the true thing. When I put down liberal pieties with some plucky bon mot, it may be irritating but I know liberals and like many liberals as people and I think I can justly sketch out the parameters of a liberal or left-leaning worldview without insulting that kind of belief or misrepresenting the ideas and ideals. That's why I'm better than ya, ya hateful bastards. Wink wink.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

Some praise him. I haven't seen a single reason to praise or even feel neutral about the man since he appeared on my radar screen. Not one!

Who praises him?

In my opinion, some people support him since he's the only game in town for them. But I doubt anyone praises him. You'd have to be a few marbles short to deem Bush praiseworthy.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

You'd have to be a few marbles short to deem Bush praiseworthy.

Oops.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

When I put down liberal pieties with some plucky bon mot, it may be irritating but I know liberals and like many liberals as people and I think I can justly sketch out the parameters of a liberal or left-leaning worldview without insulting that kind of belief or misrepresenting the ideas and ideals. That's why I'm better than ya, ya hateful bastards. Wink wink.

Promise to do the same but only after a Democratic administration is in place. Bit too much to ask while he and his pals are in power.

In all seriousness, neither extreme is good. It was disgusting to see the far right pillory the left when Bill and Hill were in there. He was a better president than you give him credit for, at least based on what you wrote in a previous post. He brought moderation to the party. There was a very good essay on his accomplishents in the New Yorker a few years ago (Seymour Hirshfeld?? I don't remember).

[Ellery Eskelin]

Not knowing the man personally I guess I can't say I really hate him. But he certainly embodies the detestable policies that we and the rest of the world have had to endure these past years...and that makes it hard not to hate the man. I do detest what I see as his insincerity and arrogance...and it's hard not to take it personally since his policies affect every one of us on some level.

Just one example that I've been thinking about recently...this in the context of the worst violence in Iraq since the "hand-over". Bush keeps on saying that we are safer (and who really believes that?) and that it's better to have terrorists attacking in Iraq than attacking us on our soil. Now that gets me to thinking...if we are there to "liberate" the Iraqi population what is Bush's statement about terrorism really saying about his concern for them? How do you think they might feel about that statement? Could it be that George Bush doesn't really give a f**k about the people of Iraq? He's tried in vain to justify this war with a variety of shifting reasons and yet he's simply replaced one horror with another. He's botched the job and all he can say is "stay the course"...can we really arrest or kill enough people to ever stem the flow of terrorism there or anywhere?

And how does fighting our battles (ostensibly with al qaeda?) on third party soil make us safer at home? Haven't we generated more hate, more disruption, more distrust and hence more fodder for terrorist actions? Does anyone think that terrorists will not be even more determined to strike on US soil?

I'm starting to spew..pardon...but Bush's stance is completely screwed. He must go. I believe it was Monte (among others) who has pointed out that Kerry does not inspire Democrats, that Democrats just want anyone but Bush. Probably true, but when I asked Monte and other JC conservatives if they wouldn't really prefer that another candidate head the Republican ticket no one came to Bush's defense. Forget about hate, who even likes this guy?!?

Monte, for what it's worth, your point about being able to articulate the opposition's positions is dead on...not that I've done that here...

[stonemonkts]

Monte - I don't take what you wrote as "praise". Was it praise? If so, then I take back my crack about a marble shortage. I respect what I've parsed from your posts, plus you're a funny motherfucker, and that makes up for a lot.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by Ellery Eskelin

And how does fighting our battles (ostensibly with al qaeda?) on third party soil make us safer at home? Haven't we generated more hate, more disruption, more distrust and hence more fodder for terrorist actions? Does anyone think that terrorists will not be even more determined to strike on US soil?

That's exactly the problem with the Party of Monte. They aren't willing to accept the equation. Unless we adopt a true hands off policy with the Middle East (which would require a huge reduction in arrogance and the might-is-right posture we've clumsily employed over there for decades), the violence will only escalate.

Patricia's analogy of the hornet's nest is apt.

[sonic1]

I hate the bastard.

[Monte Smith]

Thanks, stone. I always get a kick out of your posts, too. My post here wasn't particular praise of Bush, but there are elements in the man which are praiseworthy. And if I were to speak in personal terms of the President, which is something I find a little stupid, I'd say the dude's a straightshooter, has a good sense of humor, takes terrorism seriously, and sings the hymn of capitalism. I like that. And, of course, he doesn't treat his political opponents as shabbily as they treat him.

Ellery, I see your point on terror and third party soil. But, of course, I believe it makes eminently good sense to confront jihadis in places other than Lower Manhattan and the doors of the Pentagon. I can see how the rest of the world would be just as happy if the fight was fought on our soil. And from their perspective they are not wrong. As to your worry that we are simply inspiring more terrorism, maybe so, but there was already enough of it in existence for the past forty years, thanks. If we flush them out so they attack our forces, at least they'll be killed...which is a heartwarming thing, isn't it? Ah, it's fucked up. But today an al Qaeda-like group (that's what the media reports called them) declared that they were going to make a "bloody war" in Europe. And as we all know, Europeans are the enlightened good guys. If they can't get along with terrorists, what chance have we cowboys got?

[Dennis Gonzalez]

I know that a lot of the time we see each other as conservative or liberal or maybe something in between, but what I really like is this new funny civility that we have for each other. I think humor is going to get us through, because whether we are lib or cons, we know someone who has lost a job or a son or daughter to the terribleness of how people have started treating each other.

We share the world, and people, I think, are beautiful when lef t alone to be that.

[Ellery Eskelin]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Ellery, I see your point on terror and third party soil. But, of course, I believe it makes eminently good sense to confront jihadis in places other than Lower Manhattan and the doors of the Pentagon. I can see how the rest of the world would be just as happy if the fight was fought on our soil. And from their perspective they are not wrong. As to your worry that we are simply inspiring more terrorism, maybe so, but there was already enough of it in existence for the past forty years, thanks. If we flush them out so they attack our forces, at least they'll be killed...which is a heartwarming thing, isn't it? Ah, it's fucked up. But today an al Qaeda-like group (that's what the media reports called them) declared that they were going to make a "bloody war" in Europe. And as we all know, Europeans are the enlightened good guys. If they can't get along with terrorists, what chance have we cowboys got?

So basically you're saying that we're just plain fucked...?

[moneyp]

Originally Posted by Ellery Eskelin

So basically you're saying that we're just plain fucked...?

I agree with Monte, then. We're fucked.

[sonic1]

I am sooooo tired of people calling him a straight shooter. He is a Mayberry Machiavelian. That is a more correct epithet. You can't be a total liar and also be straight shootin'. He likes to project as if he was a straight shooter-that is what he wants you to think. But he stumbles over politics just like any other. Being a bulldozer is not being a straight shooter. Carter was the last straight shooter we had. Being a straight shooter means telling the truth, even if the public don't like it. Bush has never done that.

Jared

[Ellery Eskelin]

Originally Posted by mone peterson

I agree with Monte. We're fucked.

Well then I guess we ought to all just get with the neo-con program of world domination, baby...war as far as the eye can see...

call me an idealist but that just ain't good enough...

[moneyp]

Originally Posted by Ellery Eskelin

Well then I guess we ought to all just get with the neo-con program of world domination, baby...war as far as the eye can see...

call me an idealist but that just ain't good enough...

World domination is impossible, even for the U.S. of A. Who are we going to attack after this? We don't *have* the resources to attack anyone after this. Forget terrorism and think of the most pragmatic reason for attacking Iraq (aside from the incentives for Bush's business partners, granted). I think getting a foothold in a volatile region from which the U.S. relies a great deal upon for economic resources isn't entirely ridiculous. I won't even attempt to quantify what this is worth in lives, but it's a currency Americans have decided to pay since the Mayflower sailed.

I don't support the war in Iraq, because I can't get behind so many people dying even if it does impact my prosperity, and even if I thought the end justified the means, I don't think that we have the economic resources or the leadership to pull it off. Nothing has changed my mind on either count.

But now that it's done, I sure hope to hell we back up our puppet government with all the force we can muster, because it will be blown to hell fifteen minutes after we're gone.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

Hatred of another person is a more personal matter for me, and requires a lot of energy, etc.. Thankfully I haven't had any reasons to hate anyone for a long time now.

I hate what he and his party represent, and always have. He's just one in a long line in my lifetime.

In other words, you don't hate Bush per se, just Republicans in general and he's a Republican.

I like Republicans more than Democrats on economic issues and foreign policy. I like Democrats better on personal liberty issues. That said, the current Republican Congress and President Bush have acted very irresponsibly on economic issues.

The Islamofascists want to kill Americans and other enemies of their twisted version of Islam and establish totalitarian regimes similar to the Taliban in Afghanistan in Arabic countries. Which candidate gives us a better chance to win the war against Islamofascism? I think Bush. That's 80% of why I'm tepidly supporting him. I don't think the indecisiveness of Kerry will serve our national security.

I"m also a contrarian by nature, a trait that has benefitted me professionally. The immense hatred of Bush, expressed by the Democrats and their embrace of Michael Moore pushes me further into the Bush camp.

[moneyp]

I"m also a contrarian by nature, a trait that has benefitted me professionally. The immense hatred of Bush, expressed by the Democrats and their embrace of Michael Moore pushes me further into the Bush camp.

In other words, you're just being reactionary, and basing your level of support on things that have nothing to do with the issues. I think liberals can be annoying, too, but disagreeing with them simply because they're annoying ain't the answer.

(To Captain Hate: this was the gist of my question to you on the other thread.)

[graypencil]

No I don't "hate" him .. but I have absolutely NO respect for him personally ,and certainly policy wise ..

I also think he ( and his gauleiters ) have pretty well fucked up the country internally, internationally and by any set of measurements you choose to cite.

besides all that, he totally disgusts me with his intellectual vapidity, his sadistic undertone overlayed with his faux "born agin' " bullshit , and his open disdain for all of the "'murrican people " ..except for his elite coterie of "have even mores "

Hate him ?

no ..but then again, I don't "hate" a dog turd either ..

I just clean it up and throw it in the crapper ..

and that's what I plan to do this November with DUBBya..

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

In other words, you don't hate Bush per se, just Republicans in general and he's a Republican.

I'm not speaking for stonemonkts, of course.

Gordon, this is so often your signature kind of response. Please re-read it and see if it seems truly logical. First, you put words in people's mouths through unsupportable assumptions. Then you often take it to the level of absurdity, in my view, this being a case in point. Can't you separate the person from what that person represents, proposes, takes action on, etc.? Jesus, man.

Following your logic, you don't hate Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton per se, just all Democrats?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

I'm not speaking for stonemonkts, of course.

Gordon, this is so often your signature kind of response. Please re-read it and see if it seems truly logical. First, you put words in people's mouths through unsupportable assumptions. Then you often take it to the level of absurdity, in my view, this being a case in point. Can't you separate the person from what that person represents, proposes, takes action on, etc.? Jesus, man.

Following your logic, you don't hate Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton per se, just all Democrats?

If I say he hates what Republicans represent, and George Bush is another Republican, not a special case, am I still making a misleading statement?

Ron, you damned well understood what I meant.

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

Monte...you're a funny motherfucker...

I guess half-truths are better than outright lies.

[Root Doctor]

As a Republican who disdains the Bush administration, I certainly don't hate the President, but I do think he's an undistinguished, divisive incompetent. His policies have been reactionary, not conservative, and we are a weaker nation as a result. Debt, inept diplomacy, and an overextended military are hardly the hallmarks of prudent leadership.

On the topic of hatred, I wish was as generous as other folks here about not hating those we don't know. I hate bin Laden and Zawahiri and their associates, and I want nothing more for them to suffer slow, painful, and humiliating deaths. This is a moral failing of mine, I know, but there you have it.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

His policies have been reactionary, not conservative, and we are a weaker nation as a result. Debt, inept diplomacy, and an overextended military are hardly the hallmarks of prudent leadership.

Well said, Root. I think there is nothing more admirable than true conservatism and true liberalism...and not many of our leaders are that pure or true.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

If I say he hates what Republicans represent, and George Bush is another Republican, not a special case, am I still making a misleading statement?

Ron, you damned well understood what I meant.

Yep, it's not only misleading in my estimation, but totally unsupported as I stated earlier.

This thread title and the poll questions clearly dileneate between the person and the views and/or policies of that person. Please slowly and carefully read what follows a no response below. You lumped them together as if they're somehow divinely inseparable. They're not. Some things are mutually exclusive. I happen to believe this is one of them.

View Poll Results: Do you hate George W. Bush?

yes

no, but I hate everything the appointed moron and his criminal gang have done since he was appointed

other.

________________________________________________________________

You clearly suggested that (by default) stonemonkts "hates" all Republicans.

Peace ... out.