Why so poisonous?

[Prospero]

There is a lot of poison on both sides, as each thinks the worst of the other's candidate and assumes the world is going to end if he wins.  This discussion board is a great thing in that people from both sides seem to get along pretty well.

And as far is Bush being a success, only the passage of time will determine that.  But I would guess decades and centuries from now he will be considered a failure.  The errors of his administration will most likely bear fruit after he leaves office, whenever that is either this year or not.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let me cite a couple of other examples.

First an organization called something like 'Jews for Kerry' had a web posting in which one of their characters attacked and beheaded Vice-President Cheney.

Second, a Tennesse organization supporting Kerry has a web site where they posted the message that (working from memory) 'Voting for Bush is like winning a race in the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded).

While I agree that some Bush supporters have cross the line of decency, they have been chastised for their actions.

Also, can you cite similiar examples by Bush supporters?

[Gabu]

Also, can you cite similiar examples by Bush supporters?

Read, like, half of the posts by "shankbear".

"maybe it is the vacuum you live in, you sound like a democrat"

"Kerry was the gut and cut senator.  His LIB record proves it."

"LIBS....stealing what they can't win."

"seems you just like to spew the LIB line.  That will get you nowhere Don."

"Florida is not a toss-up unless it is stolen by rampant DEM voter fraud."

"So a media outlet decides that it wants to allow the presentation of another point of view.  LET THE WHINEFEST begin from the left."

"LIBERAL....if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....it's probably a duck."

"Voter fraud by the DEMS may make or break Florida."

"Life has demonstrated that the LIBERAL ideology is a failure."

"Look out....Zogby's on the loose.  LIBS can cut way back on the valium."

I think you get the idea.

[J. J.]

Also, can you cite similiar examples by Bush supporters?

Read, like, half of the posts by "shankbear".

The only thing that I really see here is lumping everyone in a group with all the others.  Something that Freedomburns and jfern have done repeatedly; jfern even went so far as to threaten "civil war."

[khirkhib]

As has phillip

[J. J.]

As has phillip

I frankly never saw Philip go that far, though he might.

[A18]

I didn't say I support Civil War. I said I'd rather have Civil War than Kerry's big government health care plan.

Because the second will cost more lives.

[Gabu]

I didn't say I support Civil War. I said I'd rather have Civil War than Kerry's big government health care plan.

Because the second will cost more lives.

And because the first would kill only liberals, according to you.

[A18]

The liberals would just pass a bunch of UN resolutions against us.

[khirkhib]

But UN resolutions don't mean anything right Phillip.  Would the big bad UN pick on you.  Oh of course they stopped Saddam from building weapons of mas destruction but you weren't planning on building those were you.  Oh but maybe you need the Sarin gas so that you can kill Liberals.

[Democratic Hawk]

Who are you referring to?  People on this board?  For the most part, the only people who hurl personal insults around here are Bush supporters.

Your right there!

As far as Bush goes, personally I don't dislike Bush at all - but as US president's go, he is rather mediocre! Now he's appealing to Democrats evoking FDR, Truman and JFK. Frankly, Bush couldn't shine their shoes!

Dave

[A18]

FDR was a terrible president, Truman was mediocre. JFK had zero accomplishments, so I can't judge him either way.

[Democratic Hawk]

FDR was a terrible president, Truman was mediocre. JFK had zero accomplishments, so I can't judge him either way.

Whatever! Even the foreign policy achievements of Reagan and Sush (41) and the collapse of the Evil Empire, were the realisation of the Truman Doctrine.

You just probably don't tate FDR, Truman and JFK because they were Democrats. I actually rate Republican presidents, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan to name but three.

Bush 43 has impressed me precious little.

Dave

[Prospero]

FDR was a terrible president, Truman was mediocre. JFK had zero accomplishments, so I can't judge him either way.

FDR and Truman were effectively disatrous in their own unique ways.  JFK lowered taxes, made putting a man on the moon a goal, and avoided a war in the Cuban crisis.  So those are three positive things, three more than either FDR and Truman.  Unfortunately, JFK had the Bay of Pigs and got us started in Vietnam.  Had he lived, I doubt things would have been very much different than they did.

[John Dibble]

As to the original question "Why are Bush haters so poisonous?" my answer is this:

"Wizard's Third Rule: Passion Rules Reason" - Terry Goodkind.

Quite simply, these people, along with other groups, have become so angry at something, or so obsessed with something, that it virtually consumes them. They become passionate about their hate, and because of that they lose the clear head required to reason and think things out objectively, and they become easily manipulated, because they want to hear bad things about Bush(or whatever their particular beef is). If they hear "Bush killed a puppy" they would believe it simply because they want to believe it - the won't care if it's true or not. Of course, the same goes for positives - become too obsessed with helping or liking something, and you will believe anything good you hear about it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Also, can you cite similiar examples by Bush supporters?

Read, like, half of the posts by "shankbear".

"maybe it is the vacuum you live in, you sound like a democrat"

"Kerry was the gut and cut senator.  His LIB record proves it."

"LIBS....stealing what they can't win."

"seems you just like to spew the LIB line.  That will get you nowhere Don."

"Florida is not a toss-up unless it is stolen by rampant DEM voter fraud."

"So a media outlet decides that it wants to allow the presentation of another point of view.  LET THE WHINEFEST begin from the left."

"LIBERAL....if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....it's probably a duck."

"Voter fraud by the DEMS may make or break Florida."

"Life has demonstrated that the LIBERAL ideology is a failure."

"Look out....Zogby's on the loose.  LIBS can cut way back on the valium."

I think you get the idea.

Apparently YOU did not get my point!

Its one thing to dispargingly refer to the other side.

Its quite another thing to call those who disagree liars, retarded or threaten violence.

See the difference?

[CARLHAYDEN]

As to the original question "Why are Bush haters so poisonous?" my answer is this:

"Wizard's Third Rule: Passion Rules Reason" - Terry Goodkind.

Quite simply, these people, along with other groups, have become so angry at something, or so obsessed with something, that it virtually consumes them. They become passionate about their hate, and because of that they lose the clear head required to reason and think things out objectively, and they become easily manipulated, because they want to hear bad things about Bush(or whatever their particular beef is). If they hear "Bush killed a puppy" they would believe it simply because they want to believe it - the won't care if it's true or not. Of course, the same goes for positives - become too obsessed with helping or liking something, and you will believe anything good you hear about it.

While there is much in what you have to say, my question would be why the extreme hatred for GW, as opposed to the contempt for either Furd or Bush pere?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As to the original question "Why are Bush haters so poisonous?" my answer is this:

"Wizard's Third Rule: Passion Rules Reason" - Terry Goodkind.

Quite simply, these people, along with other groups, have become so angry at something, or so obsessed with something, that it virtually consumes them. They become passionate about their hate, and because of that they lose the clear head required to reason and think things out objectively, and they become easily manipulated, because they want to hear bad things about Bush(or whatever their particular beef is). If they hear "Bush killed a puppy" they would believe it simply because they want to believe it - the won't care if it's true or not. Of course, the same goes for positives - become too obsessed with helping or liking something, and you will believe anything good you hear about it.

While there is much in what you have to say, my question would be why the extreme hatred for GW, as opposed to the contempt for either Furd or Bush pere?

Because they were merely so-so Presidents, not first rate mitigated disasters.

[CARLHAYDEN]

As to the original question "Why are Bush haters so poisonous?" my answer is this:

"Wizard's Third Rule: Passion Rules Reason" - Terry Goodkind.

Quite simply, these people, along with other groups, have become so angry at something, or so obsessed with something, that it virtually consumes them. They become passionate about their hate, and because of that they lose the clear head required to reason and think things out objectively, and they become easily manipulated, because they want to hear bad things about Bush(or whatever their particular beef is). If they hear "Bush killed a puppy" they would believe it simply because they want to believe it - the won't care if it's true or not. Of course, the same goes for positives - become too obsessed with helping or liking something, and you will believe anything good you hear about it.

While there is much in what you have to say, my question would be why the extreme hatred for GW, as opposed to the contempt for either Furd or Bush pere?

Because they were merely so-so Presidents, not first rate mitigated disasters.

You begin to prove my point.

Unemployment under both Furd and Bush the elder was higher than under GW, both presided over a collapse of their party, both had challenges for renomination, both betrayed their base and both were losers.

Bush's conviction and strenght (and effectiveness) really rankles liberals.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As to the original question "Why are Bush haters so poisonous?" my answer is this:

"Wizard's Third Rule: Passion Rules Reason" - Terry Goodkind.

Quite simply, these people, along with other groups, have become so angry at something, or so obsessed with something, that it virtually consumes them. They become passionate about their hate, and because of that they lose the clear head required to reason and think things out objectively, and they become easily manipulated, because they want to hear bad things about Bush(or whatever their particular beef is). If they hear "Bush killed a puppy" they would believe it simply because they want to believe it - the won't care if it's true or not. Of course, the same goes for positives - become too obsessed with helping or liking something, and you will believe anything good you hear about it.

While there is much in what you have to say, my question would be why the extreme hatred for GW, as opposed to the contempt for either Furd or Bush pere?

Because they were merely so-so Presidents, not first rate mitigated disasters.

You begin to prove my point.

Unemployment under both Furd and Bush the elder was higher than under GW, both presided over a collapse of their party, both had challenges for renomination, both betrayed their base and both were losers.

Bush's conviction and strenght (and effectiveness) really rankles liberals.

I never said they were good Presidents. However, Bush is the first President in 72 years to have a net loss of jobs. Yes, Ford and George HW Bush are the next 2 worst Presidents in that time period for that statistic.

Also, the stock market is down under Bush (I'm not sure what the statistics are on other Presidents for that).

Deficits are record highs, he lies about everything, he's totally screwing the environment, and he starts wars for none of the reasons he gives.

Yeah, he's a real great guy.

[J. J.]

You begin to prove my point.

Unemployment under both Furd and Bush the elder was higher than under GW, both presided over a collapse of their party, both had challenges for renomination, both betrayed their base and both were losers.

Bush's conviction and strenght (and effectiveness) really rankles liberals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, this does prove your point.  I think Jimmy Carter was the worst president of the 20th Century.  I also think he was honest, devote, treated people well, was a nice guy, and somebody I like to have dating my sister, if I had a sister.