Democrats Legacy: DISRESPECT?

[KCConservative]

Want more?

Yes, you'll need more, because in the examples you presented, no one was attacked. In fact, the first quote is hipster, calling someone a loon. It's not even my post. Nice try. :lol:

 

[disneydude]

...or we could all be just like Britney Spears and the rest of the Bush Apoligists.....I think we should just trust the President and support him no matter what he does......

 

[KCConservative]

...or we could all be just like Britney Spears and the rest of the Bush Apoligists.....I think we should just trust the President and support him no matter what he does......

Wasn't Brittany on The Mickey Mouse Club, disney?

 

[disneydude]

^As a matter of fact, I think she was on the new MMC.

 

[KCConservative]

^As a matter of fact, I think she was on the new MMC.

Didn't know she was a Bush supporter. So what would you say about celebrities who have the opposite view? What about Barbra Steisand, Tim Robbins, Rosie O'Donnell and others who do not "trust the President and support him no matter what he does" (your words)? What about them?

 

[disneydude]

^
It depends upon what they say. I agree with some disagree with others. But the point is, when you have someone who is so naive as to say "We should just trust and support no matter what they do", thats just ignorant.
The point I was making it blind trust is rarely a good thing. I think its good to look at things with an open mind but sometimes you have to give things critical thought.....and that is not necessarily being disrepectful. (And don't misinterpret that I am saying all the examples are not disrespectful....that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is just because you might question the administration and its agenda, doesn't make you disrespectful).

 

[KCConservative]

^
It depends upon what they say. I agree with some disagree with others. But the point is, when you have someone who is so naive as to say "We should just trust and support no matter what they do", thats just ignorant.
The point I was making it blind trust is rarely a good thing. I think its good to look at things with an open mind but sometimes you have to give things critical thought.....and that is not necessarily being disrepectful. (And don't misinterpret that I am saying all the examples are not disrespectful....that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is just because you might question the administration and its agenda, doesn't make you disrespectful).

Good point. So how do we know Ms. Spears supports and trusts him on "everything, no matter what he does"? What led you to make that assertion? And would you also say that blind criticism is equally as ignorant?

 

[disneydude]

It was in a CNN interview 09/23/03:

SPEARS: Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.


God, I can't believe I'm actually quoting Britney Spears in a debate.....ay yi yi.

....and yes, I do believe that blind criticism is just as bad.

 

[KCConservative]

....and yes, I do believe that blind criticism is just as bad.

So would you consider yourself as having an open mind with regard to this president? Frankly, you have garnered the repuatation of bashing him at every turn, of blindly criticizing him.

 

[disneydude]

^
I don't "blindly" criticize GWB.....however, I can think of very few things that I COULD support him on. The man has demonstrated his ineptness since before even taking office. If he has done anything worthy of faith, trust and respect I would give him his dues. But this man has taken our country which was financially sound and well respected and he has brought us to the brink of financial and moral bankruptcy. It seems to me that the only people who are still supporting him are the one-issue anti-abortion right wingers.

And before you start pigeon-holing me. Let me tell you a little about myself.
As I have indicated, although I consider myself a liberal democrat, I have supported SOME republican candidates in the past (so I am essentially a party-liner, but I do exercise critical thought). In California, I didn't vote for Arnold, but I think he has done a decent job and may actually vote for him in the next election. I have voted for Republican Candidates for LA Mayor. I even voted for Reagan (a vote I wish I could take back).

.....so No, KCC, just because I see this man for the failure and complete incompetent that he is, is not blind criticism. Its called seeing the world with open eyes.

 

[KCConservative]

^
just because I see this man for the failure and complete incompetent that he is, is not blind criticism. Its called seeing the world with open eyes.

If they were open, you would also be able to discuss the positive. To say this president is a "failure" and completely "incompetent" proves your eyes are closed tightly, just like Brittany Spears. I knew you'd prove my point.

 

[Carl]

just because I see this man for the failure and complete incompetent that he is, is not blind criticism. Its called seeing the world with open eyes.

It is much closer to blind criticism, in objective terms. President Bush has successfuly been elected twice, therefore the majority believe he is not a failure, and the elections themselves demonstrate he is at minimum a two-time winner.

It's difficult to defend the contention that a President of the United States is a complete incompetent. It takes an incredible amount of competence even to be nominated for the post.

I suppose I could go on in great detail, but it's not really neccessary. Your use of absolute terms, in a context that does require a modicum of necessary distinctions, illuminates the reflexive nature of your opinion.

Bearing a visceral dislike for a person does not neccessarily disable the cognitive function. People are able to continue making rational evaluations and distinctions, even of those they dislike.

For instance, most any Conservative will concede that Clinton was a personable and likeable human being, that the Conservative would probably enjoy sharing a beer with, and that he was a positively brilliant politician. Clearly one of the most gifted politicos the Democrat party has ever had.

So when one both ignores relevant distinctions, and simultaneously refuses to exhibit cognition when speaking of an individual, observation suggests a blindness in the criticism.

That sort of blind hatred, and the behaviors it fosters, will very likely constitute the core of the Democrat Legacy for this period of history. A period that will be marked to have begun with the lynching of Robert Bork, and the end of which is nowhere in sight.

 

[jfuh]

Yes, you'll need more, because in the examples you presented, no one was attacked. In fact, the first quote is hipster, calling someone a loon. It's not even my post. Nice try. :lol:

No? Exactly what I expected from you. Denial even in the face of implicating evidence.

 

[disneydude]

Bush has successfuly been elected twice, therefore the majority believe he is not a failure, and the elections themselves demonstrate he is at minimum a two-time winner.

It's difficult to defend the contention that a President of the United States is a complete incompetent. It takes an incredible amount of competence even to be nominated for the post.

For instance, most any Conservative will concede that Clinton was a personable and likeable human being, that the Conservative would probably enjoy sharing a beer with, and that he was a positively brilliant politician.

Is that the best that you can do to defend your "President". I could debate all day about whether Bush "won" either election.....but lets not go there.
Suffice it to say that this proves the "majority" support Bush is without support. First of all, even if you believe Bush won in 2000, he did lose the popular vote in any event.
Second, this contention assumes that the majority of people voted. In reality, the majority of the electorate sit on their butts and don't vote which is why we get stuck with what we get. I think you would have a very hard time arguing that the majority of the citizens of the US think Bush has done a good job.


Second part of your argument. I find it hard to believe that any conservative would say that Bill Clinton was a likeable guy and someone they would want to have a drink with.

In fact, I find it hard to believe that you could find a conservative that would actually fess us to having a drink.......(that's sarcasm btw)......

 

[Carl]

I could debate all day about whether Bush "won" either election.....but lets not go there.

But surely you can see that a willingness to debate a moot point further illustrates the blindness of the criticism. It represents an evasion of reality, a closing of the eyes to what is; blindness.

I think you would have a very hard time arguing that the majority of the citizens of the US think Bush has done a good job.

You've said he's a "failure", a "complete incompetent". I seriously doubt that you would find a majority to say that either. The reason being that most folks are not going to make absolute pronouncements, they are going to instinctively understand, and it will be evidenced in the way they structure their words, that such absolute declarations overlook a great deal of neccessary distinctions.

Those operating from greater or lesser levels of "blind" advocacy or condemnation are those who use the most absolute verbiage.

 

[disneydude]

I rarely see the world in black & white. Most people who know me will tell you that I am probably one of the most "gray" people there are, mainly because I love to play the devil's advocate, even when if goes against everything I believe.
However, in the case of Bush, I honestly can say, I cannot think of one good thing he has accomplished since taking office. I'm sure if I really sat down and struggled, I might find something but as I sit here right now, I look at this man's record, I look at his agenda, I look at the results of legislation he has passed and all I see are complete failures and results that have dragged this nation down. If there are accomplishments list them and if you convince me that I am wrong I give you my word that I will give Bush his due.

 

[disneydude]

You've said he's a "failure", a "complete incompetent". I seriously doubt that you would find a majority to say that either. .

PollingReport.com


PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also: Complete trend Survey
Approve Disap-
prove Unsure Approve
minus
Dates % % % Disapprove
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 3/10-12/06 36 60 4 -24
.

CBS 3/9-12/06 34 57 9 -23
.

Pew 3/8-12/06 33 57 10 -24
.

AP-Ipsos * 3/6-8/06 37 60 -23
.

ABC/Washington Post 3/2-5/06 41 58 1 -17
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 2/28 - 3/1/06 39 54 7 -15
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 2/28 - 3/1/06 38 60 2 -22
.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg 2/25 - 3/1/06 38 58 4 -20
.

Quinnipiac RV 2/21-28/06 36 58 6 -22
.

Cook/RT Strategies 2/23-26/06 40 54 6 -14
.

CBS 2/22-26/06 34 59 7 -25
.

Diageo/Hotline RV 2/16-19/06 45 52 2 -7
.

Time 2/15-16/06 40 54 5 -14
.

WNBC/Marist RV 2/13-15/06 40 57 3 -17
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 2/9-12/06 39 56 4 -17
.

Gallup 2/6-9/06 42 55 4 -13
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 2/7-8/06 44 47 9 -3
.

AP-Ipsos * 2/6-8/06 40 57 -17
.

Pew 2/1-5/06 40 52 8 -12
.

NBC/Wall Street Journal 1/26-29/06 39 54 7 -15
.

Time 1/24-26/06 41 55 4 -14
.

ABC/Washington Post 1/23-26/06 42 56 2 -14
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 1/24-25/06 41 51 8 -10
.

Cook/RT Strategies 1/22-25/06 47 50 3 -3
.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg 1/22-25/06 43 54 3 -11
.

CBS/New York Times 1/20-25/06 42 51 7 -9
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 1/20-22/06 43 54 4 -11
.

Diageo/Hotline RV 1/12-15/06 46 53 2 -7
.

Gallup 1/9-12/06 43 53 4 -10
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 1/10-11/06 42 49 9 -7
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 1/6-8/06 43 54 3 -11
.

ABC/Washington Post 1/5-8/06 46 52 2 -6
.

CBS 1/5-8/06 41 52 7 -11
.

Pew 1/4-8/06 38 54 8 -16
.

AP-Ipsos * 1/3-5/06 40 59 -19
.

Gallup 12/19-22/05 43 53 4 -10
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 12/16-18/05 41 56 3 -15
.

ABC/Washington Post 12/15-18/05 47 52 1 -5
.

NPR LV 12/15, 17-18/05 44 54 2 -10
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 12/13-14/05 42 51 7 -9
.

Diageo/Hotline RV 12/12-13/05 50 47 3 +3
.

NBC/Wall Street Journal 12/9-12/05 39 55 6 -16
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 12/9-11/05 42 55 3 -13
.

Cook/RT Strategies 12/8-11/05 42 55 2 -13
.

Pew 12/7-11/05 38 54 8 -16
.

Gallup 12/5-8/05 43 52 5 -9
.

AP-Ipsos * 12/5-7/05 42 57 -15
.

CBS/New York Times 12/2-6/05 40 53 7 -13
.

Quinnipiac RV 11/28 - 12/4/05 40 54 7 -14
.

Time 11/29 - 12/1/05 41 53 5 -12
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 11/29-30/05 42 48 10 -6
.

Cook/RT Strategies 11/17-20/05 41 52 7 -11
.

Gallup 11/17-20/05 38 57 5 -19
.

Diageo/Hotline RV 11/11-15/05 39 59 2 -20
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 11/11-13/05 37 60 3 -23
.

Newsweek 11/10-11/05 36 58 6 -22
.

Gallup 11/7-10/05 40 55 5 -15
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 11/8-9/05 36 53 11 -17
.

AP-Ipsos * 11/7-9/05 37 61 -24
.

NBC/Wall Street Journal 11/4-7/05 38 57 5 -19
.

Pew 11/3-6/05 36 55 9 -19
.

AP-Ipsos * 10/31 - 11/2/05 37 59 -22
.

ABC/Washington Post 10/30 - 11/2/05 39 60 1 -21
.

CBS 10/30 - 11/1/05 35 57 8 -22
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 10/28-30/05 41 56 3 -15
.

ABC/Washington Post 10/28-29/05 39 58 3 -19
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 10/25-26/05 41 51 8 -10
.

Gallup 10/24-26/05 41 56 3 -15
.

Pew 10/12-24/05 40 52 8 -12
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 10/21-23/05 42 55 3 -13
.

WNBC/Marist RV 10/12-13 & 17/05 41 53 6 -12
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 10/13-16/05 39 58 3 -19
.

Diageo/Hotline RV 10/12-16/05 40 57 2 -17
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 10/11-12/05 40 51 9 -11
.

NBC/Wall Street Journal 10/8-10/05 39 54 7 -15
.

Pew 10/6-10/05 38 56 6 -18
.

AP-Ipsos * 10/3-5/05 39 58 -19
.

CBS 10/3-5/05 37 58 5 -21
.

Newsweek 9/29-30/05 40 53 7 -13
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 9/27-28/05 45 47 8 -2
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 9/26-28/05 45 50 5 -5
.

ABC/Washington Post 9/8-11/05 42 57 1 -15
.

Pew 9/8-11/05 40 52 8 -12
.

Time 9/7-8/05 42 52 6 -10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But then again, I forget that you Bush Apologists will deny that any polls have validity, especially those that show you losing at polls that somehow you "miraculously" win.

.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Carl]

I forget that you Bush Apologists will deny that any polls have validity, especially those that show you losing at polls that somehow you "miraculously" win.

However, in the case of Bush, I honestly can say, I cannot think of one good thing he has accomplished since taking office.
...
If there are accomplishments list them and if you convince me that I am wrong I give you my word that I will give Bush his due.

Well, nobody can expect everyone to be pleased with Bush's accomplishments. I'm sure adherents of the ACLU philosophy, for example, must be fit to be tied.

But policy disagreement, even if absolute, does not indicate a lack of competence or accomplishment on the part of the person one disagrees with.

Polling is an inexact science. The disconnect between polling, and actual ballot box results, illuminates that fact. Polling, bottom line, cannot ever be truly representative in that it only measures those who consent to be polled in the first instance.

 

[disneydude]

Well, nobody can expect everyone to be pleased with Bush's accomplishments. I'm sure adherents of the ACLU philosophy, for example, must be fit to be tied.

But policy disagreement, even if absolute, does not indicate a lack of competence or accomplishment on the part of the person one disagrees with.

I'm not talking about policy disagreements. I can respect people's accomplishments even if I disagree with their policies. But what has Bush accomplished that can be deemed a success? Trust me, if I am wrong I am not above admitting. Believe it or not, I don't claim to know everything and have admitted to that in other posts.

 

[disneydude]

Polling is an inexact science. The disconnect between polling, and actual ballot box results, illuminates that fact.

The interesting thing here is that over the last 20 years, polls have been remarkably accurate. Surprisingly, or maybe not quite so surprisingly depending upon your beliefs, it has only been in the last couple of Presidential elections in a couple of swing states that the polls mysteriously differed from the "results".

 

[KCConservative]

No? Exactly what I expected from you. Denial even in the face of implicating evidence.

Where's the evidence, jfuh? No forum rules were violated. If there had been, I am sure the moderator's would have issued a warning. But none have been issued. I have an idea. Inform the mods of what you consider to be "attacks". See what they tell you. But I wouldn't send them the quote by hipster. :rofl

 

[KCConservative]

I honestly can say, I cannot think of one good thing he has accomplished since taking office.

Thank you for proving Carl's and my point. You do not see this issue with open eyes, as you claimed. You are quick to bash those who "blindly" support the president, while at the same time, blindly spewing your hate.

 

[Carl]

But what has Bush accomplished that can be deemed a success?

Well, he successfully accomplished almost all of his campaign promises. He lowered taxes, he produced a Medicaire drug plan that incorporates certain free-market elements, he passed his Education reforms, etc. He got done a greater percentage of his Campaign pledges than most Presidents in recent times.

Militarily he toppled the Taliban, decimated Al Qaeda, and overthrew the dictator of Iraq. He caused Pakistan to reverse its policy towards America, and become one of our allies against terror. He caused Libya to abandon its nuclear aspirations, and turn over its nuclear materiele.

This is a short list, and not everyone considers those things the greatest, but all are signal accomplishments of his Presidency.

 

[reaganburch]

Well, he successfully accomplished almost all of his campaign promises. He lowered taxes, he produced a Medicaire drug plan that incorporates certain free-market elements, he passed his Education reforms, etc. He got done a greater percentage of his Campaign pledges than most Presidents in recent times.

Militarily he toppled the Taliban, decimated Al Qaeda, and overthrew the dictator of Iraq. He caused Pakistan to reverse its policy towards America, and become one of our allies against terror. He caused Libya to abandon its nuclear aspirations, and turn over its nuclear materiele.

This is a short list, and not everyone considers those things the greatest, but all are signal accomplishments of his Presidency.

Don't forget getting 2 justices on the Supreme Court. One, Justice Roberts, who has become a uniter of the court. I believe I read that there were significantly more unanimous decisions on his court this year than there were last year...

 

[KCConservative]

Well, he successfully accomplished almost all of his campaign promises. He lowered taxes, he produced a Medicaire drug plan that incoporates certain free-market elements, he passed his Education reforms, etc. He got done a greater percentage of his Campaign pledges than most Presidents in recent times.

Militarily he toppled the Taliban, decimated Al Qaeda, and overthrew the dictator of Iraq. He caused Pakistan to reverse its policy towards America, and become one of our allies against terror. He caused Libya to abandon its nuclear aspirations, and turn over its nuclear materiele.

This is a short list, and not everyone considers those things the greatest, but all are signal accomplishments of his Presidency.

I wouldn't bother any further with the disney character. This list doesn't exist in his eyes, because he admittedly is not capable of seeing the positives....all the while complaining about those who wear "blinders." He and the Mousecateer are two peas in a pod.

Thank you, Carl and Reagan. Hey, disney. In the words of my late father, "When two people say you're sick, lie down."