An Honor That Bush Is Unlikely to Embrace - Page 9

galenrox · 07-09-08, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

And what damage is done? In a 100 years are people going to care that people voiced their dissent in such a manner? Don't you think that people can discern between different Presidents?

Could the Muslims in Dearborn, MI destroy our country by naming undesireable things after Bush? Could the terrorists win simply by making doormats and toilet paper with Bush's image on them?

How the **** is this voicing dissent? It's mocking the office, nothing more. You know damn well I think Bush is one of the worst Presidents we have ever had, but it's ****ing inappropriate.

If this were justified, FDR and Woodrow Wilson are both far more deserving of having disgusting things named after them. I think it'd be accurate if they named some kind of invasive rectal wart after FDR, or maybe some kind of natural occurrance that spews poisonous gas into the air, but it would still be inappropriate because he was the President of the United States, and so regardless of the innumerable ways in which FDR and Woodrow Wilson ****ed up this country if anything's gonna be named after them it should be something that reflects the honor of the office of the Presidency. FDR and Wilson are at least as bad, and actually significantly worse than Bush, so clearly the same applies to Bush.

But, of course, people in San Francisco have vanished too far up their own assholes to respect anything deserving of respect, because respecting things deserving of respect isn't progressive enough.

galenrox · 07-09-08, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

I changed "liberalism" to the more accurate "Group Think."

What you described is heavily at fault for the debacles of Iraq due to the group think mentality of the Bush Administration during 2002.

Group think can happen to any group, and that is a good example of that. It's worse when it happens to groups that are defined by self-congratulation in the first place.

obvious Child · 07-09-08, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galenrox

Group think can happen to any group, and that is a good example of that. It's worse when it happens to groups that are defined by self-congratulation in the first place.

Or a belief in moral and religious superiority coupled with a belief they are to change the word. It doesn't matter what ideology the group is. If they fail to regularly debate issues and seek outside view points, then the predictable problems of group think will emerge.

independent_thinker2002 · 07-09-08, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galenrox

How the **** is this voicing dissent? It's mocking the office, nothing more. You know damn well I think Bush is one of the worst Presidents we have ever had, but it's ****ing inappropriate.

If this were justified, FDR and Woodrow Wilson are both far more deserving of having disgusting things named after them. I think it'd be accurate if they named some kind of invasive rectal wart after FDR, or maybe some kind of natural occurrance that spews poisonous gas into the air, but it would still be inappropriate because he was the President of the United States, and so regardless of the innumerable ways in which FDR and Woodrow Wilson ****ed up this country if anything's gonna be named after them it should be something that reflects the honor of the office of the Presidency. FDR and Wilson are at least as bad, and actually significantly worse than Bush, so clearly the same applies to Bush.

But, of course, people in San Francisco have vanished too far up their own assholes to respect anything deserving of respect, because respecting things deserving of respect isn't progressive enough.

Treating the office like a monarch that can only be praised seems ludicrous. I find the frustration with the people pushing this petition misplaced. It seems that a president can do anything and still be above ridicule in this fashion. Forget that a President's actions are what actually dishonor the office. People seem to want to think that the office is fragile. Would the office be strengthened by having 40 foot statues in the center of every town and giant murals and tapestries with Presidents wearing military garb and Rayban Sunglasses? Perhaps we can have people turn in their gold for toilet seats at Presidential Palaces.

jallman · 07-09-08, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Treating the office like a monarch that can only be praised seems ludicrous. I find the frustration with the people pushing this petition misplaced. It seems that a president can do anything and still be above ridicule in this fashion. Forget that a President's actions are what actually dishonor the office. People seem to want to think that the office is fragile. Would the office be strengthened by having 40 foot statues in the center of every town and giant murals and tapestries with Presidents wearing military garb and Rayban Sunglasses? Perhaps we can have people turn in their gold for toilet seats at Presidential Palaces.

What's up with the hyperbole and the histrionics? No one is saying that the president can't be ridiculed. The point (which you seem to either be missing entirely or just ignoring) is that this isn't dissent; it's juvenile hysterics and basically just classless antics by the lowest common denominator in our society. As I said before, productive dissent would be registering people to vote against the president, not signing a petition that basically compares the president to **** and the rudeness shown the to the majority of people who voted for him.

The only way a civilized, democratic society remains functional is for the citizens to act like the are running a country and not bullying a schoolyard.

"Hyuck...teacher didn't give us our way so we're gonna pick on you until we get it. Hyuck hyuck hyuck."

It's just stupid. It's not even funny and it's so boorish I can't even think of another way to describe it except...stupid.

independent_thinker2002 · 07-09-08, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

What's up with the hyperbole and the histrionics? No one is saying that the president can't be ridiculed. The point (which you seem to either be missing entirely or just ignoring) is that this isn't dissent; it's juvenile hysterics and basically just classless antics by the lowest common denominator in our society. As I said before, productive dissent would be registering people to vote against the president, not signing a petition that basically compares the president to **** and the rudeness shown the to the majority of people who voted for him.

The only way a civilized, democratic society remains functional is for the citizens to act like the are running a country and not bullying a schoolyard.

"Hyuck...teacher didn't give us our way so we're gonna pick on you until we get it. Hyuck hyuck hyuck."

It's just stupid. It's not even funny and it's so boorish I can't even think of another way to describe it except...stupid.

It may be stupid, but I think it's harmless.

jallman · 07-09-08, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

It may be stupid, but I think it's harmless.

Except that it isn't harmless. It creates a lot of animosity in the public arena that hinders even the desire to have honest discussion.

obvious Child · 07-09-08, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Except that it isn't harmless. It creates a lot of animosity in the public arena that hinders even the desire to have honest discussion.

Be that as it may, this is just the icing on the cake. And honest discussions about politics generally only occur between non-partisans who this won't effect at all. Look here. The most dishonest crazies are the partisans.

jallman · 07-09-08, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Be that as it may, this is just the icing on the cake. And honest discussions about politics generally only occur between non-partisans who this won't effect at all. Look here. The most dishonest crazies are the partisans.

I think it drives people toward partisanship. Things like this polarize people. I know, for myself, I used to be very centrist until I recognized liberals for what they are and I have since taken a hard turn to the right.

independent_thinker2002 · 07-09-08, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Except that it isn't harmless. It creates a lot of animosity in the public arena that hinders even the desire to have honest discussion.

If it came anywhere close to the animosity that Bush and his surrogates have brought to the public arena I might consider that point. And really, at this point, what is there to discuss honestly about Bush? That exports to Iran have increased on his watch?