Jump to content

Hating Bush Is Like Hating Paris Hilton


Recommended Posts

I'm a college student at Augustana College in Rock Island, IL.I'm also a conservative. Now for those of you that are college-aged... you probably know that it's easier to be young and gay than it is to be young and conservative these days. I have been subjected to numerous discriminations based on my political views, because I'm vocal about them. I'm even a social liberal... but my support for the war in Iraq is enough to get yelled at. But that's for another topic.Here's my question: Why is the President so hated? Why is he regarded as one of the worst Presidents of our time?The facts:- No terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11.- One of the best economies of the past 100 years- Ridiculously low unemployment- Technology is growing at an incredible pace- One of the most bipartisan Presidents of our time... (not a good thing in my opinion, but why would liberals oppose this?) read: No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Benefit, economic stimulus packages targeting the poor/middle class... etc.I guess I just don't get it. So maybe some liberals could enlighten me, with ... facts. Oh, and do your best to explain yourselves without mentioning Iraq, because we've all heard that debate enough. Good luck... because you're not going to find a whole lot.I just think that with the aid of people like Jon Stewart and Michael Moore, the young culture has come to HATE a man for no real good reason. It's just like Paris Hilton. And it's really not fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, I'm not gay. I probably should've clarified. I was just using an analogy I've made with one of my friends (who happens to be gay).Also, Paris Hilton is unfairly despised. She was great in House of Wax! :club:- TR

Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to really understand why bush is hated you need to understand what a liberal is.Liberals base all their policital truth on their feelings. They care more than conservatives, therefore their methods, regardless of outcome, are better.If you are better than you deserve to be right, deserve to be in charge, and deserve to be allowed to run everyone else's life.So along comes Bush. Now Bush partied in school, liberals did too, but Bush did it worse. So he is a Coke head drunk.Bush used his family's influence to get only mildly dangerous duty during Vietnam, by flying one of the most unsafe planes the military ever had. Gore used family influe nce also, but Bush did it worse, Bush flew a gas guzzling plane. Gore only flew a Kodak, which he used to take pictures of real soldiers while his bodyguard watched his back.Bush ran an election, and ran it based on the only way you can win....Electoral college votes. Gore ran an election also, but he ran it on who's the most popular. Unfortunately he didn't get the ONLY votes that mattered, becaue he didn't carry his home state of Tennessee. So instead the left blamed Florida, and specifically the districts they controlled, and made the ballots that they later said were too confusing.Bush then becomes President. And 9-11, War all liberals vote with Bush, all liberals give rah rah speaches to keep their faces synonomous with patriotism. Then the war took too long, and the WMDs were too small to get really worked up over. So then Bush lied, he fooled the dems who read the same reports, and he forced people like Kennedy and Clinton to vote for the war. Then algore came back and said the whole world is going to die in 10 years (January 27th, 2006 ) Bush didn't turn over the White House to Gore even though Gore cares about the earth more than everyone else. This was unacceptable. The left gave Gore a medal, and an Oscar, and a pass on making $millions upon $millions off of the global warming scare. And a pass on his 10 bedroom mansion that uses more power than 20 regular homes. Becasue Algore cares more.They also care more about gas prices, and even though they receive 42% of all money you pay at the pump, they have not lowered the tax rate one tenth of a percentage. So their record breaking tax revenue collections of close to 90% ( 42% up front, 46% corporate tax on the back ) from gas reciepts are good, the 8% profit margin the oil companies make is bad. Oil companies need to care more.So they hate Paris Hilton like they hate Bush. She shouldn't be skinny and rich, she doesn't care about otters as much as heavier poor women do so she is to be hated.There's more but this gives you a good foundation to understand liberals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
and the WMDs were too small to get really worked up over.
the Weapons of MASS destruction were too small to get worked up over?I give up.There were never any WMD FOUND STOP WATCHING FOX!!!!! JESUS!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever notice how often, that whenever a valid counter point to a liberal position is presented by a conservative point of view, that as part of the liberals counter attack they often can't resist to inevitably roll out the 'Rush Limbaugh' or 'Fox News' can of whip ass in an attempt to discredit that point of view?Anyone else find that unbelievably insulting, as if conservatives have no fking clue what up or down is, or are capable of an intelligent thought on their own? Ever consider that maybe, perhaps, just maybe, the opinion is a result of several influences and several sources, in addition to several media media outlets, and that maybe, just maybe, not all of those sources are full of it? That maybe every now and then the MEDIA gets it right? The mindset that just because a story or issue got media attention has now and forever rendered that issue or story completely tainted and invalid as a credible source is beyond retarded.......unless of course it is a liberal point of view, then it's OK to use those same sources.wtf? :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ever notice how often, that whenever a valid counter point to a liberal position is presented by a conservative point of view, that as part of the liberals counter attack they often can't resist to inevitably roll out the 'Rush Limbaugh' or 'Fox News' can of whip ass in an attempt to discredit that point of view?Anyone else find that unbelievably insulting, as if conservatives have no fking clue what up or down is, or are capable of an intelligent thought on their own? Ever consider that maybe, perhaps, just maybe, the opinion is a result of several influences and several sources, in addition to several media media outlets, and that maybe, just maybe, not all of those sources are full of it? That maybe every now and then the MEDIA gets it right? The mindset that just because a story or issue got media attention has now and forever rendered that issue or story completely tainted and invalid as a credible source is beyond retarded.......unless of course it is a liberal point of view, then it's OK to use those same sources.wtf? :club:
sighSeriously nice rant and all, but my point wasnt fox news IT WAS THE FACT THAT NO WMDS WERE FOUND IN IRAQ
Link to post
Share on other sites

IF you were Saddam Hussein... and you inevitably knew the United States was going to invade for like SIX MONTHS... would you keep the weapons there?I wouldn't, I'd try to make America look as asinine as possible. SHIP 'em to Syria or Iran!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't, I'd try to make America look as asinine as possible. SHIP 'em to Syria or Iran!
Is there evidence for this theory? Because I've watched this war pretty closely, and never heard this theory be espoused as true before.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there evidence for this theory? Because I've watched this war pretty closely, and never heard this theory be espoused as true before.
Sure, common sense. If you knew that in 6 months guys would be looking for your weed you might put the weed elsewhere. Way to much has been out on the "they never found". Did anyone really expect to find anything? I have porn hidden in my house my wife can't find, you think governments with endless resources can't manage to hide something they know you are looking for?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, common sense. If you knew that in 6 months guys would be looking for your weed you might put the weed elsewhere. Way to much has been out on the "they never found". Did anyone really expect to find anything? I have porn hidden in my house my wife can't find, you think governments with endless resources can't manage to hide something they know you are looking for?
So the evidence of WMDs is that they've never been found? LOL.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So the evidence of WMDs is that they've never been found? LOL.
No. I am saying that if they did exist- and, I will give our intelligent agencies the benefit of the doubt- than anyone who thinks we had a shot of finding them when it's all over the news that we are coming for them doesn't know how hide and seek works. See, the idea is, if someone knows you may be somewhere, be somewhere else. It's pure genius in it's simplicity. The point is, the absence of them being found in no way says they never existed, or don't still exist, especially if you give your opponent even a lick of credit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
In order to really understand why bush is hated you need to understand what a liberal is.Liberals base all their policital truth on their feelings. They care more than conservatives, therefore their methods, regardless of outcome, are better.If you are better than you deserve to be right, deserve to be in charge, and deserve to be allowed to run everyone else's life.So along comes Bush. Now Bush partied in school, liberals did too, but Bush did it worse. So he is a Coke head drunk.Bush used his family's influence to get only mildly dangerous duty during Vietnam, by flying one of the most unsafe planes the military ever had. Gore used family influe nce also, but Bush did it worse, Bush flew a gas guzzling plane. Gore only flew a Kodak, which he used to take pictures of real soldiers while his bodyguard watched his back.Bush ran an election, and ran it based on the only way you can win....Electoral college votes. Gore ran an election also, but he ran it on who's the most popular. Unfortunately he didn't get the ONLY votes that mattered, becaue he didn't carry his home state of Tennessee. So instead the left blamed Florida, and specifically the districts they controlled, and made the ballots that they later said were too confusing.Bush then becomes President. And 9-11, War all liberals vote with Bush, all liberals give rah rah speaches to keep their faces synonomous with patriotism. Then the war took too long, and the WMDs were too small to get really worked up over. So then Bush lied, he fooled the dems who read the same reports, and he forced people like Kennedy and Clinton to vote for the war. Then algore came back and said the whole world is going to die in 10 years (January 27th, 2006 ) Bush didn't turn over the White House to Gore even though Gore cares about the earth more than everyone else. This was unacceptable. The left gave Gore a medal, and an Oscar, and a pass on making $millions upon $millions off of the global warming scare. And a pass on his 10 bedroom mansion that uses more power than 20 regular homes. Becasue Algore cares more.They also care more about gas prices, and even though they receive 42% of all money you pay at the pump, they have not lowered the tax rate one tenth of a percentage. So their record breaking tax revenue collections of close to 90% ( 42% up front, 46% corporate tax on the back ) from gas reciepts are good, the 8% profit margin the oil companies make is bad. Oil companies need to care more.So they hate Paris Hilton like they hate Bush. She shouldn't be skinny and rich, she doesn't care about otters as much as heavier poor women do so she is to be hated.There's more but this gives you a good foundation to understand liberals.
You know what really bothers me? This is all true, it's in your face facts about liberals, and you guys have got absolutely nothing to say. No reply. Nada. The thing is, why doesn't it bother you all as well? How can you stand side by side with such a vapid mindset and rest easy in your soul?
Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I am saying that if they did exist- and, I will give our intelligent agencies the benefit of the doubt- than anyone who thinks we had a shot of finding them when it's all over the news that we are coming for them doesn't know how hide and seek works. See, the idea is, if someone knows you may be somewhere, be somewhere else. It's pure genius in it's simplicity. The point is, the absence of them being found in no way says they never existed, or don't still exist, especially if you give your opponent even a lick of credit.
So why didnt he use them?The reason to invade Iraq was because he was a "serious threat with weapons of mass destruction" so instead of hiding them, he would use them.....there was several UN weapon inspectors that went in and said nothing was there. Bush and pro Iraq war people made a mockery of the weapon inspectors. So instead of realising that the inspectors were right the whole time, you'll give your "intelligent agencies the benefit of the doubt"
Link to post
Share on other sites
So why didnt he use them?The reason to invade Iraq was because he was a "serious threat with weapons of mass destruction" so instead of hiding them, he would use them.....there was several UN weapon inspectors that went in and said nothing was there. Bush and pro Iraq war people made a mockery of the weapon inspectors. So instead of realising that the inspectors were right the whole time, you'll give your "intelligent agencies the benefit of the doubt"
Or, he just wasn't ready. He was a lunatic dictator who in the end had nothing but a pile of cash and a pistol in a dark hole somewhere. That being said, even lunatic dictators know when to hold em. I believe that you are making a huge mistake if you assume that there is no possible way that these ever existed and are not possibly in the possession of another at this point. I believe you are making a huge mistake not trusting our intelligence agencies, this is what they do. Put it this way- if you were the guy who the country trusted to make sure that alligators don't jump out my toilet, I would listen no questions asked if you told me there was a high probability that and alligator would soon jump out my toilet. Now, if it never came to fruition, great, carry on. Now, what if it was more nefarious? What if the whole reason for the creation of the alligator warning agency was because there is a man whose diabolical plan is to release alligators onto unsuspecting public toilet users? And, you are hot on his trail, and you capture him, but never the alligators- would you immediately tell the public they never existed? No. He just managed to stay one crucial step ahead of you. As a matter of fact it was dumb ****ing luck you even caught him. That's intelligence, as dumbed down as I can do it for you. It's an often incomplete story where a number of factors come into play to get from point A to point B- it's alot like poker, when you think about it. Incomplete information used to make intelligent choices. Edit: The problem is that you can also make a not so intelligent choice, depending on how good you are. Nevertheless, choices must be made, and what many of you often fail to realize is that if we had info, and don't act on it, we would be just as ****ed if anything happened. There are certain factions of our society- well, you guys- that the powers that be can never really satisfy. They are damned either way.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest beef against Bush is that he's dumb. Like, dumb as hell. Okay, he's probably not really stupid. I'm sure in some ways he's mildly intelligent. But he's the president of the United States. We only get one of those, so he is held to a higher standard. Though Bush may barely pass as a mediocre mind compared to the rest of the world, in terms of the leader of the free world, he's really really quite stupid.But I guess I could deal with that if he had good advisers to guide his presidency. Indeed, he did find several smart people to surround himself with, but instead of guiding his presidency, they turned out to be driven by their own personal agendas and preconceived policies than by anything else. So, instead of being quick to react to facts and to change policies based on new evidence, they turned out to be stagnant and unrelenting.The economy is by no means strong, but that's not Bush's fault necessarily, so I won't hold that against him. Certainly, however, it's not a point for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, he just wasn't ready. He was a lunatic dictator who in the end had nothing but a pile of cash and a pistol in a dark hole somewhere. That being said, even lunatic dictators know when to hold em. I believe that you are making a huge mistake if you assume that there is no possible way that these ever existed and are not possibly in the possession of another at this point. I believe you are making a huge mistake not trusting our intelligence agencies, this is what they do. Put it this way- if you were the guy who the country trusted to make sure that alligators don't jump out my toilet, I would listen no questions asked if you told me there was a high probability that and alligator would soon jump out my toilet. Now, if it never came to fruition, great, carry on. Now, what if it was more nefarious? What if the whole reason for the creation of the alligator warning agency was because there is a man whose diabolical plan is to release alligators onto unsuspecting public toilet users? And, you are hot on his trail, and you capture him, but never the alligators- would you immediately tell the public they never existed? No. He just managed to stay one crucial step ahead of you. As a matter of fact it was dumb ****ing luck you even caught him. That's intelligence, as dumbed down as I can do it for you. It's an often incomplete story where a number of factors come into play to get from point A to point B- it's alot like poker, when you think about it. Incomplete information used to make intelligent choices.
First Im not American, and I want to say this without a condescending tone. Seriously, if you watched from the very start, everything about the war, you would not think this.To everyone else, the Iraq war was the most blatanly illegal war ever. As I have mentioned before, an Australian minister admitted one of the reasons Australia supported America was for the oil. He actually admitted it. Balloon Guy even acknowledged it. You can find it one of the 2 previous threads.Basically to me, its a simple plain fact that the Iraq war was illegal. Can you not remember how much the term WMD was used?I'm just shocked years later people still think it was a fair enough reason to engage war.You were duped by your President and a lot of your media, and to the idiot OP who I have been trying to avoid speaking to, this is why Bush is hatedBut with people like BG still actually saying WMDs were found, I understand that I will be attacked and contradicted about this and the truth wont be accepted.But honestly this is how I view and most of the world views the Iraq War. Its not some attack on your flag. This is the truth.If you refuse to even ponder the notion for a moment that you may be wrong, well then, I suppose we will have some more fun repetitive arguements
Link to post
Share on other sites
You know what really bothers me? This is all true, it's in your face facts about liberals, and you guys have got absolutely nothing to say. No reply. Nada. The thing is, why doesn't it bother you all as well? How can you stand side by side with such a vapid mindset and rest easy in your soul?
Yeah, those were some really substantial facts. Liberals act based on "feelings." Ooohh, you got us there. I can't possibly counter that level of sophisticated analysis of policies and ideas, so I'm going to go run scared to Canada with my hybrid car and my gay lover. So, seriously though, you certainly should celebrate this massive blow to liberalism. I'm not sure how we're going to recover from this loose analysis of, uh, Al Gore...or something. You really nailed us. I see this moment as the beginning of the end of the Democratic party. As the news spreads of this damning new evidence, certainly as a party and as an ideology as a whole, we will collapse and disband. I mean, my god, how could we ever recover. We partied only a little less than Bush? We're absolutely done for.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, those were some really substantial facts. Liberals act based on "feelings." Ooohh, you got us there. I can't possibly counter that level of sophisticated analysis of policies and ideas, so I'm going to go run scared to Canada with my hybrid car and my gay lover. So, seriously though, you certainly should celebrate this massive blow to liberalism. I'm not sure how we're going to recover from this loose analysis of, uh, Al Gore...or something. You really nailed us. I see this moment as the beginning of the end of the Democratic party. As the news spreads of this damning new evidence, certainly as a party and as an ideology as a whole, we will collapse and disband. I mean, my god, how could we ever recover. We partied only a little less than Bush? We're absolutely done for.
Finally I understand how you made it so far in Joey jo jo jos brackets
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh...

So why didnt he use them?The reason to invade Iraq was because he was a "serious threat with weapons of mass destruction" so instead of hiding them, he would use them.....there was several UN weapon inspectors that went in and said nothing was there. Bush and pro Iraq war people made a mockery of the weapon inspectors. So instead of realising that the inspectors were right the whole time, you'll give your "intelligent agencies the benefit of the doubt"
LONDON, England -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says he would not be surprised if coalition forces found chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. Blix also says the coalition had "other motivations" for invading Iraq besides Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs. Clinton News Network LinkNext: Who wanted to Invade Iaraq?Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Clinton News Network LinkEither rewrite history better, or stop pretending you remember what happened.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, those were some really substantial facts. Liberals act based on "feelings." Ooohh, you got us there. I can't possibly counter that level of sophisticated analysis of policies and ideas, so I'm going to go run scared to Canada with my hybrid car and my gay lover.
I knew it.I knew it.I knew it.I knew you drove a hybrid.Wimp
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...