A challenge to the "pro-Bush" crowd

from JoeUser Forums
I have a challenge to those bloggers here who are pro-bush...

The challenge is:

Name three instances when bush responded/acted ineffectively and/or incorrectly. (In your opinion) (i.e. Katrina, Abu Ghraib, etc...)

Name three policies of bush's that (during his 2000 or 2004 campaign) you disagreed with, and state why (if you do ) you disagree with them.

Name three negative aspects of Bush. (Truly negative, not crap)

-Can ya do it?

Note: This is only for the pro-bush crowd. And no using the examples given.

Well, I'm trying to prove a theory of mine. That there is no such thing as a rational, logical, intelligent pro-bush person. IMO its all about some sort of blind nationalism, perhaps there is an underlying problem that creates their blind nationalism. Perhaps?

Actually, I am sick and tired of having people demand we rack our brains to try to find good things about Bush, and saying if we have trouble with it or don't feel like playing your game, all liberals are crazed idiots full of hate. Finding three things you like about Bush doesn't prove you are more intelligent than someone who is considered more "moderate." We just see the world in different ways, that doesn't make us dumber and needing to find three things we like about him to redeem us.
politics
21,652 views 27 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
yeah, I screwed up the title. It's fixed now
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Note: This is only for the pro-bush crowd. And no using the examples given.

Well, I'm trying to prove a theory of mine. That there is no such thing as a rational, logical, intelligent pro-bush person. IMO its all about some sort of blind nationalism, perhaps there is an underlying problem that creates their blind nationalism. Perhaps?

You just defeated your own challende.  If you want to prove a theory, you do not set the end result before the test.  You have already decided that only the hate Bush crowd can respond.  Since you will not accept and have already put out your own bias.

if you want an Honest dialog, try approaching the subject in a neutral manner (altho we do know you dont like him, you could have at least attempted to make it neutral at the beginning).

You say we cant use the examples given, yet they are biased.  Some, definitely Dabe, would agree with you and go on from there.  Others would argue that Bush saw a problem and corrected it.  And the ones you want, rare as they are, would just jump on you for not realizing the fact that corrective actions were taken, and no justification was forthcoming.

Your straw man is just a liberal poll.  and a bad one.  Perhaps you should rephrase and rewrite it.  But I dont think you can.  You already have (by your own words) the conclusion of your theory in mind.  So nothing that can or will be stated will sway you.  So it is pointless to try.

me thinks you would be better served getting your own house in order (Canada) than just setting up a straw dog to flame against.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
at least, it's fixed on my blog
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
You just defeated your own challende. If you want to prove a theory, you do not set the end result before the test. You have already decided that only the hate Bush crowd can respond. Since you will not accept and have already put out your own bias.
if you want an Honest dialog, try approaching the subject in a neutral manner (altho we do know you dont like him, you could have at least attempted to make it neutral at the beginning).
You say we cant use the examples given, yet they are biased. Some, definitely Dabe, would agree with you and go on from there. Others would argue that Bush saw a problem and corrected it. And the ones you want, rare as they are, would just jump on you for not realizing the fact that corrective actions were taken, and no justification was forthcoming.
Your straw man is just a liberal poll. and a bad one. Perhaps you should rephrase and rewrite it. But I dont think you can. You already have (by your own words) the conclusion of your theory in mind. So nothing that can or will be stated will sway you. So it is pointless to try.
me thinks you would be better served getting your own house in order (Canada) than just setting up a straw dog to flame against.


I think you are misunderstanding the point. To see the actual point, just read to the last paragraph. The whole point is that I'm sick and tired of having to rack my brain for three things I agree with about Bush. The rest is just quotes from another recent post bent backwards to try to prove my point.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
You just defeated your own challende
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess I cannot play because I am not a bushie.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

The whole point is that I'm sick and tired of having to rack my brain for three things I agree with about Bush.

Then you are being rhetorical.  More of a self refection.  That is fine.  We have seen several vents of late (Dharma and Trudy), so have at it!  It is good for the soul.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is that a challenge? I have no trouble finding many things I don't like about Bush or his policies.

But what about my challenge to the left, which I occasionally repeat?

Tell us, in all honesty, that you ACCEPT the fact that under Saddam there died many more Iraqis than under the occupation, that you REALISE that the invasion has thus saved the lives of tens of thousands while causing a (comparatively) minimal numbers of victims, but that you still BELIEVE that the world would be a better place if the invasion had not happened and that thus the invasion was wrong.

Anybody who can honestly tell me that they believe that a world with more Iraqi victims but no American occupation of Iraq would be a better place, can expect to be referred to as an absolutely honest and principled pacifist, in a comment on his blog, when requested.

Although I'll add that I also think that anybody who believes that a world with more dead Iraqis is a better world is not a good human being.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr.Guy,

It's just a twist on Bailey's (in his latest incarnation) challenge for the anti Bush crowd to name three things POSITIVE about Bush.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Bush's policies were about nationalism, why would he bring democracy to Iraq and advocate a Palestinian state? Why would he support Turkey's entry into the EU? And why do white supremacists support the other side?

Frankly, "latour999", it seems like you have never thought this through. It seems like you have merely decided that Bush is a nationalist and you are now trying to find evidence for that and can't find anything.

I tell you who the nationalists are. It's the Ba'athists. Saddam's regime were nationalists. That's where you find them.

And you know who and what isn't a nationalist? The Kurdish president of Iraq isn't. The new Iraq of Kurds and Arabs isn't. The new Iraq with two official languages isn't. Nationalism is not what neo-conservatives are about. We fight nationalism!

And the left defend it.

But nationalism has always lost. And it will lose again.

We have seen German nationalism rise and fall. And we have seen Arab nationalism rise. We are seeing it fall now. This is a good thing, "latour999", and the left and the radical right cannot stop it. You can merely postpone the fall of nationalism.

Unfortunately postponing the fall of nationalism is a bloody affair. You shouldn't attempt it.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

If Bush's policies were about nationalism, why would he bring democracy to Iraq and advocate a Palestinian state? Why would he support Turkey's entry into the EU? And why do white supremacists support the other side?

Frankly, "latour999", it seems like you have never thought this through. It seems like you have merely decided that Bush is a nationalist and you are now trying to find evidence for that and can't find anything.

I tell you who the nationalists are. It's the Ba'athists. Saddam's regime were nationalists. That's where you find them.

And you know who and what isn't a nationalist? The Kurdish president of Iraq isn't. The new Iraq of Kurds and Arabs isn't. The new Iraq with two official languages isn't. Nationalism is not what neo-conservatives are about. We fight nationalism!

And the left defend it.

But nationalism has always lost. And it will lose again.

We have seen German nationalism rise and fall. And we have seen Arab nationalism rise. We are seeing it fall now. This is a good thing, "latour999", and the left and the radical right cannot stop it. You can merely postpone the fall of nationalism.

Unfortunately postponing the fall of nationalism is a bloody affair. You shouldn't attempt it.


And you Andrew should at the very least go back and read reply #11.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

read reply #11


Nothing to do with what I wrote.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's just a twist on Bailey's (in his latest incarnation) challenge for the anti Bush crowd to name three things POSITIVE about Bush.

I missed that one.  But i guess it is the same horse, different rider then.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just to clear things up, I wasn't actually trying to start a challenge (perhaps I should have been more clear on that). It was more of a response to EindelWolf's challenge Linkwhere he put forward a similar challenge (except the opposite) for anti-Bush people, then said that if we didn't come up with three positive things, three policies from his 2000 campaign, etc, all people who dislike Bush are basically irrational morons who are full of hate. I was trying to say that we all have different opinions, different thought processes, etc., and having three things that we like about Bush isn't a prerequisite to rationally, intelligently disagree with him.

This wasn't meant to be about Bush or Iraq or anything. I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

This wasn't meant to be about Bush or Iraq or anything. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Tis ok.  Yea, a rant.  Hope it was a good one.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tis ok. Yea, a rant. Hope it was a good one.


It was fairly decent, but I think I'm going to need an alcohol fueled rant soon (bad day at work).
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

read reply #11



Nothing to do with what I wrote.


WRONG. It has "everything" to do with it. In case you missed it (which you obviously did.) The original thread was a sarcastic one at best. Go read latour999's reply #16.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

WRONG. It has "everything" to do with it.


No. Nothing.

My reply was directed at a post in this thread, not at the beginning of it. Believe it or not, but _I_ decide what I want to say and in reply to what I want to say it, _not_ you.

And if I tell you that something has NOTHING to do with what I wrote and why I wrote it, you can believe me or not, but you cannot know that I am wrong.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
WRONG. It has "everything" to do with it.



No. Nothing.

My reply was directed at a post in this thread, not at the beginning of it. Believe it or not, but _I_ decide what I want to say and in reply to what I want to say it, _not_ you.

And if I tell you that something has NOTHING to do with what I wrote and why I wrote it, you can believe me or not, but you cannot know that I am wrong


Then please point me at the proper post you were referring to when you wrote this.

Frankly, "latour999", it seems like you have never thought this through. It seems like you have merely decided that Bush is a nationalist and you are now trying to find evidence for that and can't find anything.

I tell you who the nationalists are. It's the Ba'athists. Saddam's regime were nationalists. That's where you find them.

And you know who and what isn't a nationalist? The Kurdish president of Iraq isn't. The new Iraq of Kurds and Arabs isn't. The new Iraq with two official languages isn't. Nationalism is not what neo-conservatives are about. We fight nationalism!

And the left defend it.

But nationalism has always lost. And it will lose again.

We have seen German nationalism rise and fall. And we have seen Arab nationalism rise. We are seeing it fall now. This is a good thing, "latour999", and the left and the radical right cannot stop it. You can merely postpone the fall of nationalism.

Unfortunately postponing the fall of nationalism is a bloody affair. You shouldn't attempt it.


Since his only post between yours and the original was him telling you that his original post was basically nothing more than a "rant".
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was fairly decent, but I think I'm going to need an alcohol fueled rant soon (bad day at work).


Have one on me! The Raiders are up soon, so I will be ranting at the computer (that is the only way I get them).
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps you should re-state your challenge, maybe then you'll get some real answers.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps you should re-state your challenge, maybe then you'll get some real answers.


I don't care about real answers. Just read the last paragraph of the original post.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, I am sick and tired of having people demand we rack our brains to try to find good things about Bush, and saying if we have trouble with it or don't feel like playing your game, all liberals are crazed idiots full of hate. Finding three things you like about Bush doesn't prove you are more intelligent than someone who is considered more "moderate." We just see the world in different ways, that doesn't make us dumber and needing to find three things we like about him to redeem us.

Well, YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT REAL ANSWERS.

Isn't that the purpose of a sincere question?

I guess I should suggest that you make a more pointed question...without additional rhetoric, thus eliminating disconstructive hyperbole.

You're making a very good challenge here, why not make it obvious whilst avoiding the extraneous shtuff?