Deference, you see it, or at least you can see their mirrors on the Right. - Bakerstreet
You're correct and I've see it from both sides. As a teen, I lived through the P.C. Clinton years where you couldn't criticize the President without being called an ignorant conservative, fascist, or be isolated from certain social groups because you thought the popular 'first black president' was smooth-talking scum.
I posed my question to I.D. in an attempt to capture a more accurate picture of where Island Dog is coming from.
For all I know, Island Dog, anyone who provides criticism of the administration may be a Bush Basher in your eyes (aside from 'safe' messengers such as Draginol). I'm guessing you sometimes believe one is only ever criticizing the Administration for political advantage instead of actually having some beef with one of the many problems present today. Instead of bothering addressing some possible legitimate questions or arguments posed by the 'Bush Basher' it's much easier to leave a simple one-liner that neatly labels a blogger and then places them on a high shelf very far away from any actual conversation.
Certain topics act as rich fields for this practice; President Bush, President Clinton, 9/11, Iraq, and most recently, the Foley episode, allows bloggers to continually display the ritual of abuse conceptually headlined "JoeUser v. JoeUser".
Col. Gene's thread is the paradigm of this phenomenon. The dynamics are more sheltered because most everything happens on Gene's 'turf', but it's most easily seen when he makes the occasional venture on to someone else's thread. Any comment he posts on someone else's blog is often met with the equivalent of, "Shut the hell up, go away." Col. Gene does make some good points but has spent almost two years here with small variance to his usual modus operandi so though he may be indefensible, I would argue that newer bloggers (often lurking as one of the anonymous 400 - 1400 or so 'guests') are most probably turned off, shut down, and / or hesitant about joining in the greater JU conversation or,in particularly, entering in to specific topics because of labeling such as 'Bush Basher', 'liberal', 'bigot', 'conspiracy theorist', 'baby killer', 'troll', 'loon', 'racist', 'anti-semite' etcetera.
I believe in 'calling it as one sees it', but sometimes it seems the lack of inspired posting lends some JU denizens the mind to flame.
This leads to stagnation at this site. People speak less, new users become infrequent, and JU sees less exposure on the web.
There is a difference between honest criticism and obsessive hating. The problem is most democrats and liberals choose the latter. - Island Dog
Have you noticed there seems to be quite a bit of democrats and liberals excessively hating these days? It's because there are many more criticisms to be made of this administration and the majority party then ever before - not because they are so-called Republicans, but because they are seen as those running the show.
No, I don't think it's just election year bluster - I don't see many fluff issues present.
Yes, I do think it's typical of most modern Presidents' second terms.
But here's the secret - it's not all democrats and liberals 'hating'. I have always had the distinct impression you (and you're not alone) simply lump everyone in to a wastebasket you don't have to concern yourself with based on your assumption of whether or not they voted for GW. This is a convenient way of dealing with basically anonymous bloggers possibly thousands of miles away you may never meet, but as I detailed above, I think this defense / deterrent structure is of disservice to the general JU conversation, at large.
So when I see this thread pop up, I wonder if you're fishing for the few 'liberals' that visit this site so that you may hand them a Loony Loopy Luddite Liberal certificate of authenticity based on their responding or if you're looking for voices to echo your sentiments. In the end - little actual conversation is acheived but fertile ground for flaming becomes the benchmark for appraising the worth of a thread such as Is Obsessively Hating Bush a Mental Disorder?.
I believe these people have some type of mental disorder and should seek professional help. - Island Dog
I'm sure this is intended as as less then serious slight against those that hold the President accountable for every problem present in the free world. However, I think those people are simply fixating on the highest perceived political power they can think of and cry,"Why isn't he doing anything about this?" similar to raging against God for everything wrong in one's life.
JoeUser Forums
