Why the left hates Bush

It's about the unelected right wing extremists behind a dunce

from JoeUser Forums
    I love it when right wingers make up all kinds of imagined reasons why so many Americans just despise George W. Bush. Let me dumb it down for them: We don't like Bush because he's such a complete and utter idiot that every time he speaks we cringe at the embarrassment that this half-wit is the leader of our country.

    We also are still peeved that Bush is only President because some some dummies in Palm Beach Florida couldn't fill out a ballot. Democrats seem to attract the smartest and the absolute dumbest people into their ranks along with a lot of people of common sense. The Republicans are left over with the semi-bright and the semi-dense, most of whom confuse simplistic thinking with decisive common sense.

    As a President, Bush looks like an idiot. A semi-dense guy having a beer with the guys watching Football is fine. When he's deciding economic policy it's disturbing. We just can't get over the obviousness that he's just a front man for an unelected organization that is behind him. People think they voted for Bush. Bush is just the figure head of a hawkish extreme right team whose arrogant, bumbling policies are masked by the Bush "good old boy" charm. People think he's harmless. He is harmless.  But the men behind him aren't.

    When you see Bush speak at a press conference next to say, Tony Blair, the difference is striking. Blair eloquent, knowledgeable, intelligent. Bush, stuttering, redundant, ignorant. Bush is the rich frat boy that got everything handed to him. In Revenge of the Nerds, he would have been one of the bad guys. In nearly every college based movie, Bush would have been the rich, spoiled, obnoxious, mean spirited blue blooded jerk that everyone boos and hisses at. Yet at election day, people voted for him. Not the majority of people. Not even a plurality of people (he lost by a million votes). But a lot of people voted for him.

    Another reason we despise Bush is that because the people actually running the show behind Bush are unelected and incredibly arrogant. The invasion of Iraq was carried out with extreme hubris and arrogance. Would it have even happened if the French hadn't acted like such asses to rally support behind Bush? Who knows. But think about this, the United States used about as many troops to invade the tiny island of Okinawa as they used to invade the much larger Iraq. And Okinawa, generously being an island, meant no insurgents were coming in from nearby undeclared hostiles.

    So what? Bush cuts taxes, creates record deficits after his predecessor left him with record surpluses and obliviously leads our country into ruin because he doesn't know any better. That's why the left despises him.

politics
18,682 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Question:

How is Bush running the country into the ground?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I could not help but notice that the POV was "we," what is the definition of "we" in this case? Do you mean that someone appointed you the spokesman of the liberals? I thought all liberals were are all on on suicide watch today because greyout Davis and the Dems lost California by a 60% landslide, libs on MSNBC were livid, this is great.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here is my take on why the left hates Bush:

Despite Bush not being very intelligent, despite his notorious butchering of the English language, despite being a former drug user and alcohol abuser, despite being the rich son of a career politician, depsite any other ad-hominem attacks by the left, the message and ideas articulated by President Bush resonate more strongly with the American people than anything the left has to offer.

I've heard alot of complaining from democrats about losing the election with the most popular votes. However I have not heard about any desire from that party to change our election laws.

In the invasion of Okinawa about 12000 Americans were killed or missing.

Bush did not create record deficits. The economy had already started to slow down before he took office.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
madine said:
"In the invasion of Okinawa about 12000 Americans were killed or missing."

i think you meant to add some sentences to this when you were making your post.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
LOL! Living in berkeley, I get to hear the incessant moan of left-wing moonbats all day long. I could go on a long descriptive rant detailing all the reasons why, but I figure it's just as poignant to go the simple and more fun route.

Modern day left-wingers hate Bush because he is absolutely deaf to their moans. They moan in each of their -separate and unequal- "councils" and "movements" about how unfair life is and how guilty they feel and if they were emperor, the whole would would be a wonderful cross between Holland and Stalinist Russia. Bush is too busy actually protecting their asses from the very "friends", who will happily slit their throats at a moments notice, to care about their petty ignorant whining.

Hubris? Of course it looks like hubris to a pathetic lefty. From the dirt-grovelling perspective they hold, anyone standing upright is full of pride. I can't help but think of the movie "The Killing Fields" where you watch a young girl decide whether or not people live or die - and you can see the harsh and ignorant judgement in her eyes. To her (and them) anyone who dares to lift their head from the 'good work' of rooting in the rice fields is a selfish, prideful insurgent.

Thank god these assholes are just laughed at by our government, and by the voting public.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, Bush can't be entirely blamed for the economy, since it is normal for the economy to fluctuate. I also think that Bush is as much of a puppet of the Republicans as Gore is for the Democrats and (Insert Name Here) is for the (Insert Party Here).
As for Tony Blair, I didn't realize that people actually respected him (not that I don't respect him, but I often hear how much of a tool he is).
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
*sigh*
Calor, you're full of the stuff that camel-merchants sell to gardeners.

George Bush Jr. was a fighter pilot. (Yes, he was a Guardsman, not a verteran combat pilot. That's not germane to my point.) Stupid people can't fly high-performance aircraft. They crash them. That's why the military won't let stupid people fly.

George Bush Jr. holds an MBA from Harvard. It doesn't matter how much money you hand them, Havard doesn't award MBA's to stupid people. As an un-accredited school, Havard's brand-name is sacred, and they won't risk it, no matter how many buildings you are willing to endow. Stupid people don't get MBA's from Harvard.

He's not a genius. He's not a charismatic public speaker. But he's not stupid.

Lamont
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not think better communication skills would improve relations between Bush and the liberal Marxists. Reagan was an incredibly good linguist and the liberals hated him regardless of that fact. Liberal cartoonists depicted Reagan as a warmongering lunatic that carried a button for the nukes wherever he went so he could destroy the world at a personal whim.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm a Liberal (although not a Marxist) and I DON'T George Bush. No reason for me to hate him.

He didn't steal the election. Al Gore gave it to him. Gore failed to galvanize a constituency that was solidly behind him at the outset. Gore was the incumbent Vice President during a period of tremendous peace and prosperity. He had a huge lead early in the campaign. It was his arrogance and lack of polical skills that cost him the election and devastated the liberal movement in America. Note to Mr. Gore: Don't sigh during debates.

True, President Bush was elected by a slim margin. So was John F. Kennedy. Richard Nixon, on the other hand, won the 1972 election by the greatest plurality in history. Does that make Nixon a "true" President and Kennedy a pretender?

I think President Bush displayed true grace under fire in the days folowing 9/11. Think back to some of his speeches. He did very well.

On the other hand, some of Bush's choices scare me. Ashcroft, to me, represents the entrenchment of the Religous Right. But his boss seems to have kept him under control.

I wish the President would say "I honestly believed, based on the information that was presented to me, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that posed an imminent threat. That seems not to be the case." But there are plenty of people that have a hard time making such admissions.

President Bush has certainly addressed the Mid-East. I don't knock him for a lack of success, that is a difficult situation at best. But he has taken a stance that is acceptable to me. Not great, but acceptable.

The economy seems to have taken a positive turn. Bear in mind that we have survived WorldCom and Enron as well as 9/11 and two small wars. People seem to be heading back to work, last month at least.

As a liberal, I see a moderately conservative President who is vulnerable on several issues. What I don't see (yet) is a liberal candidate that can get the vote out. Maybe I am underestimating Howard Dean, I need to make time to learn more about him. But if George Bush is re-elected, as seems likely now, it will be because the Liberal party in America fails to field a strong candidate. Not because of dangling chads.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oops! That should be "I DON'T hate George Bush."
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
It should be noted that liberals tried to paint Reagan as an idiot. But anyone who's read Reagan's private writings and letters can easily see that the man was extremely well read and very intelligent.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

In the presidents state of the union I thought he made a good case that if Saddam was a threat now or later, it would have been unwise to sit around and wait for Saddam to become an imminent threat. I was able to get past the 16 words that liberals define as Bush's big lie.


Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)


Full transcript of President State of The Union 2003
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
extreme hubris and arrogance. LOL
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess you could say I'm a liberal and I do think Bush is an idiot and I honestly can't stand him as a President but he's here, thats life, so we deal with it. I don't blame him for the economy (though cutting taxes when its already nose diving? THAT was stupid) nor do I have a problem with his policy in the middle east...indeed I think he should be even more firm there. No more catering to Hamas and the likes.

However, the person I completely cant stand and still cant see how he made it into office is Ashcroft. That bag of hot air should be hung up and left to deflate. As to people who says he hasn't done any damage - he wants to. Read the Patriot Act 2? Or even the first one?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
My point about Okinawa was that even without insurgents, the invasion of Okinawa was a much more dangerous military mission than Iraq. Trying to imply that the Iraq invasion was undermanned because it used the same number of troops as Okinawa is ludicrous.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"It should be noted that liberals tried to paint Reagan as an idiot. But anyone who's read Reagan's private writings and letters can easily see that the man was extremely well read and very intelligent."--Draginol

I think most people who percieve Reagan as an idiot, do so because he suffered from Alzheimer's while in office. Which effectively did make him an idiot.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good Article, but Bush is President because him, Katherine Harris, and Brother Jeb stole the election. Not becuase some people didn't know how to vote. If the hundred's or thousands of Black, or Democrat voters didn't get knocked off the voter's roll, Gore would've won clearly. Then again, I"m sure Bush would've found a way to steal it anyway.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
duh........................
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The crux of Bush winning the election was not the 3000 in Palm Beach, but that Gore failed to win his home state and therefore deserved to lose. Of course, Nader didn't help and is actually considering running again--ugh. Hatred is a strong word: I simply don't agree with GW's hardnose policy--I'm sure the survivors of the GIs feel the same way.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
It does US no good to hate Bush or any elected official. Intellect goes beyond slick talk. He was a better choice than Kerry, you must admit. If Kerry is an intellect, my dog should be Governor of NJ.