A great theory on the anti-Bush fervor
- Adex_Xeda
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
- Location: The Mighty State of Texas
A great theory on the anti-Bush fervor
Man krauthammer nailed it on his theory. When I think back at the responses I've seen from my liberal friends it all fits given the framework of this theory.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug26.html
The Pressure-Cooker Theory
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A21
Upon losing a game at the 1925 Baden-Baden tournament, Aaron Nimzowitsch, the great chess theoretician and a superb player, knocked the pieces off the board, jumped on the table and screamed, "How can I lose to this idiot?"
Nimzowitsch may have lived decades ago in Denmark, but he had the soul of a modern American Democrat. After all, Democrats have been saying much the same -- with similar body language -- ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. They said it again when they lost to that supposed simpleton Ronald Reagan. Twice, would you believe? With George W. Bush, they are at it again, and equally apoplectic.
Actually, this time around, even more apoplectic. The Democrats' current disdain for George Bush reminds me of another chess master, Efim Bogoljubov, who once said, "When I am White, I win because I am White" -- White moves first and therefore has a distinct advantage -- "when I am Black, I win because I am Bogoljubov." John Kerry is a man of similar vanity -- intellectual and moral -- and that spirit thoroughly permeates the Democratic Party.
Democrats feel a mixture of horror and contempt for the huddled masses -- so bovine, so benighted, so besotted with talk radio -- who made a king of an empty-headed movie star (Reagan, long before Arnold) and inexplicably want the Republicans' current nitwit leader to have a second term.
Historians will have a field day trying to fathom the depths of detestation that the Democrats are carrying into this campaign. Vanity is only part of it. What else is at play? First, and most obviously, revenge. Democrats have convinced themselves that Bush stole the last election. They cannot bear suffering not just a bad presidency but an illegitimate one.
Moreover, against all expectations, it turned out to be a consequential presidency. Bush was not the mild-mannered, Gerald Ford-like Republican he was expected to be -- transitional and minor. He turned out to be quite the revolutionary, most especially in his radical reordering of American foreign policy. A usurper is merely offensive; a consequential usurper is intolerable.
But that is still not enough to account for the level of venom today. It is not often that a losing presidential candidate (Al Gore) compares the man who defeated him to both Hitler and Stalin. It is not often that a senior party leader (Edward Kennedy) accuses a sitting president of starting a war ("cooked up in Texas") to gain political advantage for his reelection.
The loathing goes far beyond the politicians. Liberals as a body have gone quite around the twist. I count one all-star rock tour, three movies, four current theatrical productions and five bestsellers (a full one-third of the New York Times list) variously devoted to ridiculing, denigrating, attacking and devaluing this president, this presidency and all who might, God knows why, support it.
How to explain? With apologies to Dr. Freud, I propose the Pressure Cooker Theory of Hydraulic Release.
The hostility, resentment, envy and disdain, all superheated in Florida, were not permitted their natural discharge. Came Sept. 11 and a lid was forced down. How can you seek revenge for a stolen election by a nitwit usurper when all of a sudden we are at war and the people, bless them, are rallying around the flag and hailing the commander in chief? With Bush riding high in the polls, with flags flying from pickup trucks (many of the flags, according to Howard Dean, Confederate), the president was untouchable.
The Democrats fell unnaturally silent. For two long, agonizing years, they had to stifle and suppress. It was the most serious case of repression since Freud's Anna O. went limp. The forced deference nearly killed them. And then, providentially, they were saved. The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq.
With the president stripped of his halo, his ratings went down. The spell was broken. He was finally, once again, human and vulnerable. With immense relief, the critics let loose.
The result has been volcanic. The subject of one prominent new novel is whether George W. Bush should be assassinated. This is all quite unhinged. Good God. What if Bush is reelected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They'll need therapy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug26.html
The Pressure-Cooker Theory
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A21
Upon losing a game at the 1925 Baden-Baden tournament, Aaron Nimzowitsch, the great chess theoretician and a superb player, knocked the pieces off the board, jumped on the table and screamed, "How can I lose to this idiot?"
Nimzowitsch may have lived decades ago in Denmark, but he had the soul of a modern American Democrat. After all, Democrats have been saying much the same -- with similar body language -- ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. They said it again when they lost to that supposed simpleton Ronald Reagan. Twice, would you believe? With George W. Bush, they are at it again, and equally apoplectic.
Actually, this time around, even more apoplectic. The Democrats' current disdain for George Bush reminds me of another chess master, Efim Bogoljubov, who once said, "When I am White, I win because I am White" -- White moves first and therefore has a distinct advantage -- "when I am Black, I win because I am Bogoljubov." John Kerry is a man of similar vanity -- intellectual and moral -- and that spirit thoroughly permeates the Democratic Party.
Democrats feel a mixture of horror and contempt for the huddled masses -- so bovine, so benighted, so besotted with talk radio -- who made a king of an empty-headed movie star (Reagan, long before Arnold) and inexplicably want the Republicans' current nitwit leader to have a second term.
Historians will have a field day trying to fathom the depths of detestation that the Democrats are carrying into this campaign. Vanity is only part of it. What else is at play? First, and most obviously, revenge. Democrats have convinced themselves that Bush stole the last election. They cannot bear suffering not just a bad presidency but an illegitimate one.
Moreover, against all expectations, it turned out to be a consequential presidency. Bush was not the mild-mannered, Gerald Ford-like Republican he was expected to be -- transitional and minor. He turned out to be quite the revolutionary, most especially in his radical reordering of American foreign policy. A usurper is merely offensive; a consequential usurper is intolerable.
But that is still not enough to account for the level of venom today. It is not often that a losing presidential candidate (Al Gore) compares the man who defeated him to both Hitler and Stalin. It is not often that a senior party leader (Edward Kennedy) accuses a sitting president of starting a war ("cooked up in Texas") to gain political advantage for his reelection.
The loathing goes far beyond the politicians. Liberals as a body have gone quite around the twist. I count one all-star rock tour, three movies, four current theatrical productions and five bestsellers (a full one-third of the New York Times list) variously devoted to ridiculing, denigrating, attacking and devaluing this president, this presidency and all who might, God knows why, support it.
How to explain? With apologies to Dr. Freud, I propose the Pressure Cooker Theory of Hydraulic Release.
The hostility, resentment, envy and disdain, all superheated in Florida, were not permitted their natural discharge. Came Sept. 11 and a lid was forced down. How can you seek revenge for a stolen election by a nitwit usurper when all of a sudden we are at war and the people, bless them, are rallying around the flag and hailing the commander in chief? With Bush riding high in the polls, with flags flying from pickup trucks (many of the flags, according to Howard Dean, Confederate), the president was untouchable.
The Democrats fell unnaturally silent. For two long, agonizing years, they had to stifle and suppress. It was the most serious case of repression since Freud's Anna O. went limp. The forced deference nearly killed them. And then, providentially, they were saved. The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq.
With the president stripped of his halo, his ratings went down. The spell was broken. He was finally, once again, human and vulnerable. With immense relief, the critics let loose.
The result has been volcanic. The subject of one prominent new novel is whether George W. Bush should be assassinated. This is all quite unhinged. Good God. What if Bush is reelected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They'll need therapy.
- Adex_Xeda
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
- Location: The Mighty State of Texas
I sense a large body of negative emotion from people.
This energy is mostly irrational, seeking any offense for justification. When applied, the emotion is overdone for the particular offense thus the popular sentiment that that democrats are more "venomous" than usual for this election. Why more venomous, why the extra hate when it isn't warranted.
It makes sense that previous expression was clamped by 911 and has built up to extra fervor towards things today.
This energy is mostly irrational, seeking any offense for justification. When applied, the emotion is overdone for the particular offense thus the popular sentiment that that democrats are more "venomous" than usual for this election. Why more venomous, why the extra hate when it isn't warranted.
It makes sense that previous expression was clamped by 911 and has built up to extra fervor towards things today.
- Jice Virago
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: July 4, 2002, 5:47 pm
- Gender: Male
- PSN ID: quyrean
- Location: Orange County
What you are describing would be more accurately attributed to how the GOP rank and file felt when Clinton won both times. They were so pissed that Bush ordered his entire staff fired the day Clinton took office, rather than allow for help in the transition (relatively unheard of during a presidential transition) and neocons are still bitching about Clinton winning to this day. No one is going to bitch about how Bush stole the election, beyond of course the actual illegal disenfranchisements that took place and perhaps his backers owning the no-paper trail leaving voting machines.
Don't confuse legitimately pissed off minorities who got cock blocked out of voting with old fart fatcat lobbiests who couldn't grasp why Clinton appealed to so many people; the scenarios are entirely different. We know how that idiot got into the White House: The Supreme Court voted him in.
Don't confuse legitimately pissed off minorities who got cock blocked out of voting with old fart fatcat lobbiests who couldn't grasp why Clinton appealed to so many people; the scenarios are entirely different. We know how that idiot got into the White House: The Supreme Court voted him in.
War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .
Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
Dwight Eisenhower
Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
Dwight Eisenhower
What's so irrational about saying Bush went to war to make Halliburton money, Bush is trying to take away all of our rights (including free speech), Bush doesn't want blacks to votes, Bush wants to invade every muslim country on the planet, or saying that Bush is comparable to Hitler? Really, where are you coming from with that?Adex_Xeda wrote:This energy is mostly irrational

Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.
- Sylvus
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 7033
- Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: mp72
- Location: A², MI
- Contact:
So I guess when we remove the sarcasm, you're saying that probably sometime after we were in Iraq, Bush said "Holy Shit, Dick, you know what? We're going to need someone to rebuild this place... Haliburton could do it!!!", Bush is not taking away any of our rights (particularly free speech), Bush wanted those legitimate voters whose votes were disregarded to have their votes count, Bush has no desire to invade any muslim countries and that Bush is nothing at all like hitler?
Okay, I will agree with you that relating Bush to Hitler is a bit much, but I don't think too many of the other things on that list are true.
Okay, I will agree with you that relating Bush to Hitler is a bit much, but I don't think too many of the other things on that list are true.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." - Barack Obama
Go Blue!
Go Blue!
Sylvus wrote:So I guess when we remove the sarcasm, you're saying that probably sometime after we were in Iraq, Bush said "Holy Shit, Dick, you know what? We're going to need someone to rebuild this place... Haliburton could do it!!!", Bush is not taking away any of our rights (particularly free speech), Bush wanted those legitimate voters whose votes were disregarded to have their votes count, Bush has no desire to invade any muslim countries and that Bush is nothing at all like hitler?
Okay, I will agree with you that relating Bush to Hitler is a bit much, but I don't think too many of the other things on that list are true.
Kinda curious? Are there any other companies out there that could rebuild Iraq like Haliburton? I mean american countries?
- Krimson Klaw
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: July 22, 2002, 1:00 pm
Adex, I like you and all, but your posts on this thread are dripping of sanctimonious elitism. It's like you are looking down your nose at the people that dare disagree with such a blatently offensive editorial (or whatever that was).
This was nothing more than a pot shot that really has no purpose. C'mon dude, you are better than this.
This was nothing more than a pot shot that really has no purpose. C'mon dude, you are better than this.
- Karae
- Almost 1337
- Posts: 878
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 5:32 pm
- Location: Orange County, California
- Contact:
I could rebuild Iraq like Halliburton has - no body armor, no hot meals, and losing billions of dollars just to name a few of their myriad failures? Yeah, I could accomplish that.
Krim, you're just starting to notice the underlying theme to every one of Adex's quoted articles.
Krim, you're just starting to notice the underlying theme to every one of Adex's quoted articles.

War pickles men in a brine of disgust and dread.
Ok let me rephrase the question, Is there anothe company out there that has the resources to rebuild Iraq?Karae wrote:I could rebuild Iraq like Halliburton has - no body armor, no hot meals, and losing billions of dollars just to name a few of their myriad failures? Yeah, I could accomplish that.
Krim, you're just starting to notice the underlying theme to every one of Adex's quoted articles.
- Sylvos
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1828
- Joined: July 7, 2002, 2:55 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Jice Virago wrote:What you are describing would be more accurately attributed to how the GOP rank and file felt when Clinton won both times. They were so pissed that Bush ordered his entire staff fired the day Clinton took office, rather than allow for help in the transition (relatively unheard of during a presidential transition) and neocons are still bitching about Clinton winning to this day. No one is going to bitch about how Bush stole the election, beyond of course the actual illegal disenfranchisements that took place and perhaps his backers owning the no-paper trail leaving voting machines.
Don't confuse legitimately pissed off minorities who got cock blocked out of voting with old fart fatcat lobbiests who couldn't grasp why Clinton appealed to so many people; the scenarios are entirely different. We know how that idiot got into the White House: The Supreme Court voted him in.
Jice raises a good point, however another main reason Clinton won over Bush and Dole was because Clinton had charisma and was a consumate politician. He knew what to do and how to do it, he wasn't ineffectual and the garnered the trust of Americans. Dole and Bush lacked that prime quality that is honestly a must have attribute for being an effective President in the political circus.
- masteen
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 8197
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
You are exactly the type of venomous liberals he wrote of. Baseless accusations followed by even more baseless accusations.Jice Virago wrote:beyond of course the actual illegal disenfranchisements that took place and perhaps his backers owning the no-paper trail leaving voting machines.
Don't confuse legitimately pissed off minorities who got cock blocked out of voting with old fart fatcat lobbiests who couldn't grasp why Clinton appealed to so many people; the scenarios are entirely different. We know how that idiot got into the White House: The Supreme Court voted him in.
You really can't accept that Bush won in the contested counties. Those that ignored the first order from the FL government and finished their recounts still had Bush winning. If you doubt it, check the archives on the local news sites in those counties.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
masteen wrote:You are exactly the type of venomous liberals he wrote of. Baseless accusations followed by even more baseless accusations.Jice Virago wrote:beyond of course the actual illegal disenfranchisements that took place and perhaps his backers owning the no-paper trail leaving voting machines.
Don't confuse legitimately pissed off minorities who got cock blocked out of voting with old fart fatcat lobbiests who couldn't grasp why Clinton appealed to so many people; the scenarios are entirely different. We know how that idiot got into the White House: The Supreme Court voted him in.
You really can't accept that Bush won in the contested counties. Those that ignored the first order from the FL government and finished their recounts still had Bush winning. If you doubt it, check the archives on the local news sites in those counties.
Hell Gore won by less of a margin in Iowa lets recount those to Im sure we might find Bush whould of won Iowa.
- masteen
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 8197
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
I think that they are equally stupid, but the SBVs get lower marks because of the extreme measures they're taking to get their bullshit out.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
Being one of the very, few americans whoi will personally benefit off Bush's fucked up domestic policys, and being a person who supported him four years ago, mainly for the reason that daddy did, and one of my brothers always bitched about democrates and taxes...It only took me less than 4-5 months to realize that this guy is a major fuck up in every aspect of his presidential career. You all know my "extreme fucking stalin-like left wing mental institution insane liberal" stances, and im very thankful that now, im an american who is able to look past the propaganda that we are faced with every day...and make an opinion with a valid point.
-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
-
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3876
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: kimj0ngil
- Location: Ahwatukee, Arizona
- Contact:
-
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3876
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: kimj0ngil
- Location: Ahwatukee, Arizona
- Contact:
How is it baseless? Open your eyes for christ sake, it happened plain as day!masteen wrote:You are exactly the type of venomous liberals he wrote of. Baseless accusations followed by even more baseless accusations.Jice Virago wrote:beyond of course the actual illegal disenfranchisements that took place and perhaps his backers owning the no-paper trail leaving voting machines.
Don't confuse legitimately pissed off minorities who got cock blocked out of voting with old fart fatcat lobbiests who couldn't grasp why Clinton appealed to so many people; the scenarios are entirely different. We know how that idiot got into the White House: The Supreme Court voted him in.
You really can't accept that Bush won in the contested counties. Those that ignored the first order from the FL government and finished their recounts still had Bush winning. If you doubt it, check the archives on the local news sites in those counties.
-
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3876
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: kimj0ngil
- Location: Ahwatukee, Arizona
- Contact:
Krimson, I liked Adex's post and his subsequent comments. I'm sorry if you don't get it.Krimson Klaw wrote:Adex, I like you and all, but your posts on this thread are dripping of sanctimonious elitism. It's like you are looking down your nose at the people that dare disagree with such a blatently offensive editorial (or whatever that was).
This was nothing more than a pot shot that really has no purpose. C'mon dude, you are better than this.
Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist for Time. He is a perceptive fellow. He actually gets paid for what he does. That doesn't make him right or correct or even funny, but Adex and others of us found his column enjoyable.
By the way, do you want fries with that order? It's time for you to drive on through.
-
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3876
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: kimj0ngil
- Location: Ahwatukee, Arizona
- Contact:
I like reading well-written, insightful, even provocative commentary. It's not your fault that a significant body of such work is anti-liberal in nature.Kelshara wrote:Of course you liked the post.. you like anything that is remotely negative to Democracts and anything that is remotely positive to Republicans and your hero Bush. Duh?
I do read some "lefties" like Maureen Dowd, Fred Kaplan, Molly Ivans, Ted Rall, Eric Alterman, etc. Some of them actually write well. But I find it hard to deal with their constant reality-twisted whining. For example Alterman today is trying to blame Bush for the McCain-Feingold mess with 527 organizations. It's too absurd for me to take seriously.
But generally yes I think all people have a natural urge to enjoy that which supports your viewpoint.
<shrug>
My main issues with Bush are policy based: environment, deficit spending, taxes, foreign affairs, social issues... more or less across the board I disagree with Bush's stances on the major policy decisions of the day. Do I think he is a moron? Well, when he speaks it is hard not to think that, I mean... how many times can you really use sovereign in one sentence? Am I afraid of the consequences of him winning this election on the body politic for the next generation (largely due to the supreme court)... damn straight I am.
In general good leaders surround themselves with good men. I don't think that the people surrounding Pres. Bush are good men, but are terribly misguided men who will do anything to make their vision for the world come to pass . Since Bush appears, in public at least, to be an intellectual lightweight, I fear that the men surrounding him are making a large portion of the policy decisions that come out of the White House. This is not a good thing.
I could say the same thing about many leaders of today... Rudolph Guliani is high on that list, others are as well.
I don't really hate Bush, although sometimes its tempting to do so. I just disagree with his vision for the U.S. and the world on such a fundamental level that it may sometimes come out that way.
Animale Vicioso
My main issues with Bush are policy based: environment, deficit spending, taxes, foreign affairs, social issues... more or less across the board I disagree with Bush's stances on the major policy decisions of the day. Do I think he is a moron? Well, when he speaks it is hard not to think that, I mean... how many times can you really use sovereign in one sentence? Am I afraid of the consequences of him winning this election on the body politic for the next generation (largely due to the supreme court)... damn straight I am.
In general good leaders surround themselves with good men. I don't think that the people surrounding Pres. Bush are good men, but are terribly misguided men who will do anything to make their vision for the world come to pass . Since Bush appears, in public at least, to be an intellectual lightweight, I fear that the men surrounding him are making a large portion of the policy decisions that come out of the White House. This is not a good thing.
I could say the same thing about many leaders of today... Rudolph Guliani is high on that list, others are as well.
I don't really hate Bush, although sometimes its tempting to do so. I just disagree with his vision for the U.S. and the world on such a fundamental level that it may sometimes come out that way.
Animale Vicioso
Animale Vicioso
64 Gnome Enchanter
<retired>
60 Undead Mage
Hyjal <retired>
64 Gnome Enchanter
<retired>
60 Undead Mage
Hyjal <retired>
- Krimson Klaw
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: July 22, 2002, 1:00 pm
You lose at life for using that line.Metanis wrote:Krimson, I liked Adex's post and his subsequent comments. I'm sorry if you don't get it.Krimson Klaw wrote:Adex, I like you and all, but your posts on this thread are dripping of sanctimonious elitism. It's like you are looking down your nose at the people that dare disagree with such a blatently offensive editorial (or whatever that was).
This was nothing more than a pot shot that really has no purpose. C'mon dude, you are better than this.
Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist for Time. He is a perceptive fellow. He actually gets paid for what he does. That doesn't make him right or correct or even funny, but Adex and others of us found his column enjoyable.
By the way, do you want fries with that order? It's time for you to drive on through.
I debated with myself about closing with that line.Krimson Klaw wrote:You lose at life for using that line.Metanis wrote:Krimson, I liked Adex's post and his subsequent comments. I'm sorry if you don't get it.Krimson Klaw wrote:Adex, I like you and all, but your posts on this thread are dripping of sanctimonious elitism. It's like you are looking down your nose at the people that dare disagree with such a blatently offensive editorial (or whatever that was).
This was nothing more than a pot shot that really has no purpose. C'mon dude, you are better than this.
Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist for Time. He is a perceptive fellow. He actually gets paid for what he does. That doesn't make him right or correct or even funny, but Adex and others of us found his column enjoyable.
By the way, do you want fries with that order? It's time for you to drive on through.
But c'mon Krimson you needed to be called on "dripping of sanctimonious elitism". I'll grant you that I sunk pretty low to do it however. That said, I may lose at life but I'm sure it won't be over that line.
-
- Almost 1337
- Posts: 721
- Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
I am not a liberal. I am pretty right wing, that is when the party is not speaking from its religious nutbag mouth. I voted for Bush in 2000. I was very upset when I thought the Dems were trying to steal the elction - not just in Florida, but in other states like MO - where polls were held open in St.L. for 4 hours longer than every where else in the state (St.L. is the one democratic haven of an otherwise heavily republican State.) I think Reagan was one of our greatest presidents ever (though I don't want to deface a great peice of art to celebrate his presidency).
So none of that crap (and crap is what it is) in the above article has anythign to do with me.
GWB is by far the worst president in my lifetime. I would take 100 years under Jimmy Carter in preference to one more year under Bush.
Bush is a liar of the worst sort. He keeps as much of his presidency out of the public eye as possible. His lies have cost America much of its prestige - a valuable comodity not wisely spent getting revenge on an insignifcant dictator whoes only global importance is tied to the world's short trem reliance on oil.
Bush is the exact opposite of what a conservative should be. Under his short term in office, he has expanded the Federal Government more than any president in our history. His expansion of medicare entitlements is going to be a huge burden on tax payers for a very very long time, and handing out trivial tax cuts (driving us further into dept) does not make up for the huge welfare check he sent to the pharmacuetical industry.
Much of this new largese has gone into dubious at best and counter productive and some down right unethical actions as well. The best thing that can be said of the color-coded homeland security department is that they waste our time and money. But there have also been some real doozies - such as the use of Marshals to try and force democrats in the Texas legislature to attend session. Mostly, though, HLS's job is to keep us all afraid so that we'll be worried about not relecting the same government.
The one place Bush *is* steadfastly *conservative* (assuming you consider the religious nuts that have way too much control over the party conservative) is in *protecting christian values*. Bush can find all sorts of time to *protect* marriage. To ensure that europe and Asia, and not the United States, takes the lead in stem cell research. And of course, in preventing safe and effective day after birth control solutions from becoming widely available - in the US anyway.
This guy is the biggest peice of crap we have ever had for a president. He is incompent, he is a liar and he is a religous nutbag. And you should not have to be a liberal to see it.
So none of that crap (and crap is what it is) in the above article has anythign to do with me.
GWB is by far the worst president in my lifetime. I would take 100 years under Jimmy Carter in preference to one more year under Bush.
Bush is a liar of the worst sort. He keeps as much of his presidency out of the public eye as possible. His lies have cost America much of its prestige - a valuable comodity not wisely spent getting revenge on an insignifcant dictator whoes only global importance is tied to the world's short trem reliance on oil.
Bush is the exact opposite of what a conservative should be. Under his short term in office, he has expanded the Federal Government more than any president in our history. His expansion of medicare entitlements is going to be a huge burden on tax payers for a very very long time, and handing out trivial tax cuts (driving us further into dept) does not make up for the huge welfare check he sent to the pharmacuetical industry.
Much of this new largese has gone into dubious at best and counter productive and some down right unethical actions as well. The best thing that can be said of the color-coded homeland security department is that they waste our time and money. But there have also been some real doozies - such as the use of Marshals to try and force democrats in the Texas legislature to attend session. Mostly, though, HLS's job is to keep us all afraid so that we'll be worried about not relecting the same government.
The one place Bush *is* steadfastly *conservative* (assuming you consider the religious nuts that have way too much control over the party conservative) is in *protecting christian values*. Bush can find all sorts of time to *protect* marriage. To ensure that europe and Asia, and not the United States, takes the lead in stem cell research. And of course, in preventing safe and effective day after birth control solutions from becoming widely available - in the US anyway.
This guy is the biggest peice of crap we have ever had for a president. He is incompent, he is a liar and he is a religous nutbag. And you should not have to be a liberal to see it.
- Krimson Klaw
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: July 22, 2002, 1:00 pm
LOL screenshot! You rock dude.Metanis wrote:I debated with myself about closing with that line.Krimson Klaw wrote:You lose at life for using that line.Metanis wrote:Krimson, I liked Adex's post and his subsequent comments. I'm sorry if you don't get it.Krimson Klaw wrote:Adex, I like you and all, but your posts on this thread are dripping of sanctimonious elitism. It's like you are looking down your nose at the people that dare disagree with such a blatently offensive editorial (or whatever that was).
This was nothing more than a pot shot that really has no purpose. C'mon dude, you are better than this.
Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist for Time. He is a perceptive fellow. He actually gets paid for what he does. That doesn't make him right or correct or even funny, but Adex and others of us found his column enjoyable.
By the way, do you want fries with that order? It's time for you to drive on through.
But c'mon Krimson you needed to be called on "dripping of sanctimonious elitism". I'll grant you that I sunk pretty low to do it however. That said, I may lose at life but I'm sure it won't be over that line.
Aaeamdar wrote:I am not a liberal. I am pretty right wing, that is when the party is not speaking from its religious nutbag mouth. I voted for Bush in 2000. I was very upset when I thought the Dems were trying to steal the elction - not just in Florida, but in other states like MO - where polls were held open in St.L. for 4 hours longer than every where else in the state (St.L. is the one democratic haven of an otherwise heavily republican State.) I think Reagan was one of our greatest presidents ever (though I don't want to deface a great peice of art to celebrate his presidency).
So none of that crap (and crap is what it is) in the above article has anythign to do with me.
GWB is by far the worst president in my lifetime. I would take 100 years under Jimmy Carter in preference to one more year under Bush.
Bush is a liar of the worst sort. He keeps as much of his presidency out of the public eye as possible. His lies have cost America much of its prestige - a valuable comodity not wisely spent getting revenge on an insignifcant dictator whoes only global importance is tied to the world's short trem reliance on oil.
Bush is the exact opposite of what a conservative should be. Under his short term in office, he has expanded the Federal Government more than any president in our history. His expansion of medicare entitlements is going to be a huge burden on tax payers for a very very long time, and handing out trivial tax cuts (driving us further into dept) does not make up for the huge welfare check he sent to the pharmacuetical industry.
Much of this new largese has gone into dubious at best and counter productive and some down right unethical actions as well. The best thing that can be said of the color-coded homeland security department is that they waste our time and money. But there have also been some real doozies - such as the use of Marshals to try and force democrats in the Texas legislature to attend session. Mostly, though, HLS's job is to keep us all afraid so that we'll be worried about not relecting the same government.
The one place Bush *is* steadfastly *conservative* (assuming you consider the religious nuts that have way too much control over the party conservative) is in *protecting christian values*. Bush can find all sorts of time to *protect* marriage. To ensure that europe and Asia, and not the United States, takes the lead in stem cell research. And of course, in preventing safe and effective day after birth control solutions from becoming widely available - in the US anyway.
This guy is the biggest peice of crap we have ever had for a president. He is incompent, he is a liar and he is a religous nutbag. And you should not have to be a liberal to see it.
Dar your biased you dont like any bush at all.
-
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3876
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: kimj0ngil
- Location: Ahwatukee, Arizona
- Contact:
- Drolgin Steingrinder
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3510
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 5:28 pm
- Gender: Male
- PSN ID: Drolgin
- Location: Århus, Denmark
Or maybe he's just opposed to the idea that religion has a place, any place, in government. Could it be?!?!?!Metanis wrote:I appears you have a problem with Christians.Aaeamdar wrote:I am not a liberal. I am pretty right wing, that is when the party is not speaking from its religious nutbag mouth.
"I appears" you have a problem with well thought-out posts that reveal that it's not just Democrats who have issues with Bush and that it's possible to oppose or support a politician regardless of partisan bias.
IT'S HARD TO PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT; SOMETHING IS WRONG
I'M LIKE THE UNCLE WHO HUGGED YOU A LITTLE TOO LONG
I'M LIKE THE UNCLE WHO HUGGED YOU A LITTLE TOO LONG
None of us have a problemw with christianity itself, most of us, republicans and democrates have a problem with neocon christians hijacking the republican party and trying to imply there christian morality to the government and opress the population with thee belifs, instead of keeping them to themselves and letting americans live there personal lives as they choose. People like Jerry Falwell are killing the reputation of your party, and in a way the reputation of not christianity itself, but those who consider themselves to be "christian"Metanis wrote:I appears you have a problem with Christians.Aaeamdar wrote:I am not a liberal. I am pretty right wing, that is when the party is not speaking from its religious nutbag mouth.
by the way, great post aaeamdar
-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
You are wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.Xzion wrote:None of us have a problemw with christianity itself, most of us, republicans and democrates have a problem with neocon christians hijacking the republican party and trying to imply there christian morality to the government and opress the population with thee belifs, instead of keeping them to themselves and letting americans live there personal lives as they choose. People like Jerry Falwell are killing the reputation of your party, and in a way the reputation of not christianity itself, but those who consider themselves to be "christian"Metanis wrote:I appears you have a problem with Christians.Aaeamdar wrote:I am not a liberal. I am pretty right wing, that is when the party is not speaking from its religious nutbag mouth.
by the way, great post aaeamdar
Let me start with the basics. When you have a belief system you generally operate within the constraints of that system. For example if you believe that beating women is wrong then you are going to oppose that practice in your personal life AND you are going to try to get laws passed that beating women is wrong. I mean that's your belief and if you don't stand up for it then what kind of person are you?
People of all walks of life tend to impose their belief systems on others. Look at PETA for example. Look at communists. Look at yourself. Now look at Christians. They are told repeatedly in the Bible to "spread the good news of Jesus Christ". Yet you seem to think that we should keep it to ourselves. Why should we? Or let me take this one step further, what gives you the authority to dictate how I should live my Christianity?
By now you are sputtering about the "separation of church and state" clause in the US Constitution. You can read that section 1,000 times but it doesn't prohibit a Christian from advocating, voting, and demanding their government operate in a manner that is consistent with their Christian faith and beliefs. In fact, if a majority of the population of the country is Christian then don't you think it's reasonable to expect the "laws of the land" to be somewhat shaped by their belief system?
Now, that doesn't give us Christians the right to "oppress the population with our beliefs". However, I would need to see from you some proof of your oppression. How have the Christians of this world hurt you personally? I would ask Aaeamdar the same question. Then I would ask you to name me a place in the world that doesn't limit in some fashion various social activities due to their belief systems.
Lesson #1 here is that people have to operate within the constraints of their belief systems and Christians are will not be silent about theirs.
Lesson #2 is that Christians are allowed a voice in the governing process just like any other citizens.
Lesson #3 is that Xzion has rights to his opinion and he should vote his conscience on election day... because I sure will.
Il give you examples, yet yiu guys do a damn good job hiding your true intentions with bullshit excuses.Metanis wrote:You are wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.Xzion wrote:None of us have a problemw with christianity itself, most of us, republicans and democrates have a problem with neocon christians hijacking the republican party and trying to imply there christian morality to the government and opress the population with thee belifs, instead of keeping them to themselves and letting americans live there personal lives as they choose. People like Jerry Falwell are killing the reputation of your party, and in a way the reputation of not christianity itself, but those who consider themselves to be "christian"Metanis wrote:I appears you have a problem with Christians.Aaeamdar wrote:I am not a liberal. I am pretty right wing, that is when the party is not speaking from its religious nutbag mouth.
by the way, great post aaeamdar
Let me start with the basics. When you have a belief system you generally operate within the constraints of that system. For example if you believe that beating women is wrong then you are going to oppose that practice in your personal life AND you are going to try to get laws passed that beating women is wrong. I mean that's your belief and if you don't stand up for it then what kind of person are you?
People of all walks of life tend to impose their belief systems on others. Look at PETA for example. Look at communists. Look at yourself. Now look at Christians. They are told repeatedly in the Bible to "spread the good news of Jesus Christ". Yet you seem to think that we should keep it to ourselves. Why should we? Or let me take this one step further, what gives you the authority to dictate how I should live my Christianity?
By now you are sputtering about the "separation of church and state" clause in the US Constitution. You can read that section 1,000 times but it doesn't prohibit a Christian from advocating, voting, and demanding their government operate in a manner that is consistent with their Christian faith and beliefs. In fact, if a majority of the population of the country is Christian then don't you think it's reasonable to expect the "laws of the land" to be somewhat shaped by their belief system?
Now, that doesn't give us Christians the right to "oppress the population with our beliefs". However, I would need to see from you some proof of your oppression. How have the Christians of this world hurt you personally? I would ask Aaeamdar the same question. Then I would ask you to name me a place in the world that doesn't limit in some fashion various social activities due to their belief systems.
Lesson #1 here is that people have to operate within the constraints of their belief systems and Christians are will not be silent about theirs.
Lesson #2 is that Christians are allowed a voice in the governing process just like any other citizens.
Lesson #3 is that Xzion has rights to his opinion and he should vote his conscience on election day... because I sure will.
The anti-choice movement exsist due to christians personally take offense to it in there religion. They SHOULD be imposing there morals on themselves, they think abortion is wrong, so in return THEY shouldnt be getting an abortion. Hell, if they really feel the need to they have all the freedom in the world to protest abortion to try to encourage potential abortion-ees (?) to change there minds. They should not try to opress our country with trying to push a law banning abortion.
Gay marriage, if there religion has morals against gay marriage, catholics, presbyterians, methodist, babtist, etc etc have the freedom to deny gay marriage threw there OWN CHURCHES and by there own ministers. Yet if someone who has a faith, or no faith at all and wishes to hold the freedom to be able to perform the marriage cerimony on hetero or homosexual couples, that minister should have every right to do so. Christians shouldnt be trying to opress us with there predjutice "morals"/
the same could be said for censorship in media, bans in stem cell research and several other regressing authoritarian social movements.
-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
You shouldn't, however you should also respect other people who do not have the same beliefs as you do. Personally, I am sick and tired of having religious people knocking on my door every other week, not to mention finding "Watchtower" in my mail box or flooding the tables of the sitting areas here. And yeah, I have a huge problem with Jehovas Witnesses due to getting a personal look inside a couple of families and how they treat their kids etc.Yet you seem to think that we should keep it to ourselves. Why should we? Or let me take this one step further, what gives you the authority to dictate how I should live my Christianity?
As long as you let me live in peace and leave me alone, you can as well. However, when you try to force your belief systems and ideas on me (wether true abortion laws or by trying to block my door after you annoyed me), I'll gladly tell you to fuck off.
-
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2774
- Joined: September 30, 2002, 6:58 pm
- XBL Gamertag: launchpad1979
- Location: Sudbury, Ontario
But why are they allowed to tell what OTHER people can or can't do? If they don't want an abortion, don't get one. Right now, they want to make abortions illegal, which is letting OTHER people's rights go away.Lesson #2 is that Christians are allowed a voice in the governing process just like any other citizens.
How is that hard to understand?
- Niffoni
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1318
- Joined: February 18, 2003, 12:53 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Did you know Kerry is Satan? It's true! It must be, because I read it on the internet. Some "christian" on another forum posted it to explain why he was voting republican...
http://www.texemarrs.com/hail_kerry_hail_satan.htm
I'd quote, but there's just no part that isn't priceless. I highly recommend the parts about how all Christians will have their heads chopped off by the illuminati under "Long Devil" Kerry, the wicked Jewish conspirator.
http://www.texemarrs.com/hail_kerry_hail_satan.htm
I'd quote, but there's just no part that isn't priceless. I highly recommend the parts about how all Christians will have their heads chopped off by the illuminati under "Long Devil" Kerry, the wicked Jewish conspirator.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams
It's amazing that people believe that shit. That stuff about the skull and bones is the funniest, his "sources" tell us the satanic names of the folks in there (which, of course, include good ol' W- "temporary' hehe).
Its just sad that votes will be canceled out by dumbfucks like that.
Animale
Its just sad that votes will be canceled out by dumbfucks like that.
Animale
Animale Vicioso
64 Gnome Enchanter
<retired>
60 Undead Mage
Hyjal <retired>
64 Gnome Enchanter
<retired>
60 Undead Mage
Hyjal <retired>
- Siji
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 4040
- Joined: November 11, 2002, 5:58 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: mAcK 624
- PSN ID: mAcK_624
- Wii Friend Code: 7304853446448491
- Location: Tampa Bay, FL
- Contact:
Something very minor made my day yesterday.. I was driving down the road and here in FL we have "Choose Life" license plates for anti-abortion types to get. (Another pet peeve in itself since there's no pro-choice license plate permitted) Anyway.. I saw this license plate on a car and on the bumper of that car was a Kerry/Edwards sticker. I guess it just surprised me because I'd think anyone so pro-life would be a religious type that would be in Bush's realm.
Anyway, made my day to know Kerry's got people that I'd think would be for Bush.
Anyway, made my day to know Kerry's got people that I'd think would be for Bush.
This prooves how smart and non bigoted, semetic etc Bush supporters really areNiffoni wrote:Did you know Kerry is Satan? It's true! It must be, because I read it on the internet. Some "christian" on another forum posted it to explain why he was voting republican...
http://www.texemarrs.com/hail_kerry_hail_satan.htm
I'd quote, but there's just no part that isn't priceless. I highly recommend the parts about how all Christians will have their heads chopped off by the illuminati under "Long Devil" Kerry, the wicked Jewish conspirator.
"The Illuminati-supervised CIA helped things along. The U.S. intelligence agency put satanist Jerry Garcia and his Grateful Dead band (Al Gore's favorite rock group, says Rolling Stone magazine)"
I have a new respect for Al Gore!

-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer