A symbol of the GWB Presidency

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

yawn.

...you'd be wide awake if it were Clinton holding the flag backwards.

and it being backwards is all dependant on the position of the viewer. those behind bush (and indeed, himself) have the correct view.

lol...Charles, is he holding it up for himself or for people out, fronting him, off in the distance? Think about it.

He had to hold it for himself, to remember what country he was president of

oh WAAA i dont like him, you do...bite me LOL

if i did you'd never go home.

[Sinergy 3]

yawn.

...you'd be wide awake if it were Clinton holding the flag backwards.

and it being backwards is all dependant on the position of the viewer. those behind bush (and indeed, himself) have the correct view.

lol...Charles, is he holding it up for himself or for people out, fronting him, off in the distance? Think about it.

He had to hold it for himself, to remember what country he was president of

oh WAAA i dont like him, you do...bite me LOL

if i did you'd never go home.

I am already immortal, theres nothing your bite can do

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

yawn.

...you'd be wide awake if it were Clinton holding the flag backwards.

and it being backwards is all dependant on the position of the viewer. those behind bush (and indeed, himself) have the correct view.

lol...Charles, is he holding it up for himself or for people out, fronting him, off in the distance? Think about it.

He had to hold it for himself, to remember what country he was president of

oh WAAA i dont like him, you do...bite me LOL

if i did you'd never go home.

I am already immortal, theres nothing your bite can do

oh ye of little faith.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yawn.

...you'd be wide awake if it were Clinton holding the flag backwards.

and you'd be completely silent.

Eh...I don't think it's clearly ####### for tat - for one, I have yet to hear any noise from those on the Left accusing those on the Right of being unpatriotic over things like this. For example, Obama chooses not to wear a flag pin and people question his patriotism. As funny as it is to see Dubbya holding the flag backwards, nobody is seriously questioning his patriotism...a much more serious implication.

Since Bush has been President and the Republicans have controlled Washington for most of the last 8 years, I've heard more sympathizers overuse the word bashing. It's odd how that one word gets used to describe everything from constructive criticism of a sitting President to all out lampooning. Can someone at least get creative and come up with other verbs?

I think the term "bashing" is used for two reasons:

1. It works well with our current president's name (i.e. "Bush Bashing")

2. Using the verb "bash," "bashing" or "to bash" doesn't sound nearly as violent or potentially threatening as many others might be interpreted and when speaking of a current president, it's generally unwise to publicly state such things.

It's a buzzword...evokes an emotional response. Bush bashing sounds much more dramatic than saying Bush is being ridiculed or lampooned. I suppose I've heard words like pummeled or hammered used before which are also overly dramatic but still don't carry the same emotional baggage that bashing does. It implies that the poor soul was like a defenseless seal being clubbed for the sport of it.

It's also a very common phrase, Steven. I've heard people say things like, "My professor really bashed me over my last paper." It's in no way limited to Bush; he just gets a whole lot more flak than the average person, so perhaps we hear it more often associated with him.

What I'm trying to say is that certain words or phrases are created and then used over and over again to evoke an emotional response. There was a book recently out by a guy who used to be in marketing and then became a key Republican strategist. He admits that there is a lot of thinking and strategy behind words and phrases...and even the dissemination of those words into the political dialogue by way of the media. Many people then just parrot those words or phrases without even thinking about it. For example, a well read news blog states, "A new book out by Maureen Dowd: more Bush bashing."

Words are funny things....our desire to be truthful doesn't mean we show allegiance to specific words but to truth itself, unless we are quoting someone else. Even when quoting someone else, there is a danger of becoming a mere mouthpiece to those specific words.

I don't have a problem with the wording as much as the application is problematic. Its become a (deliberate) tendency to shrug off any legitimate criticism of Bush as "bashing". Almost as though people just don't want to have the conversation.

Perhaps they don't. While I don't particularly care for Bush, I don't vehemently hate the man as many do. Even here, there are numerous posters who will pass off any minor transgression made as "he's such a worthless moron" if Bush did it. In other words, they're allowing their own feelings to come between them and objective analysis..

Understanding that, I could see why many who consider themselves Republicans or at least, conservatives, have no wish to talk to anyone who engages in criticizing the president. Far too frequently, the criticism is simply based on pure nasty, spiteful, hatred.

That may be - but I suspect it has a lot to do with the perpetual partisan divide that a person must be either liberal or conservative and never the twain shall meet.

In short, its easier to generalise about other people.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Perhaps they don't. While I don't particularly care for Bush, I don't vehemently hate the man as many do. Even here, there are numerous posters who will pass off any minor transgression made as "he's such a worthless moron" if Bush did it. In other words, they're allowing their own feelings to come between them and objective analysis..

Understanding that, I could see why many who consider themselves Republicans or at least, conservatives, have no wish to talk to anyone who engages in criticizing the president. Far too frequently, the criticism is simply based on pure nasty, spiteful, hatred.

That may be - but I suspect it has a lot to do with the perpetual partisan divide that a person must be either liberal or conservative and never the twain shall meet.

In short, its easier to generalise about other people.

Those on the Right had to see it coming...after 8 years of constant clammering over Clinton, particularly by right wing pundits like Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh....they had to expect the same courtesy would be extended to Dubbya. And it just so happens that Bush has made it all too easy. There will always be a part of the political dialogue focused on the lampooning or all out character assasination of the sitting president. It will happen to either McCain or Obama. However, those who wish to sympathize with the President shouldn't dismiss any criticism as unfair scrutiny (bashing).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

People who know about this sort of thing say American politics is nowhere nearly as dirty as it used to be.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

People who know about this sort of thing say American politics is nowhere nearly as dirty as it used to be.

Maybe...which is why I don't get why anyone should complain about it...####### for tat, par for the course, comes with the territory, etc., etc.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

People who know about this sort of thing say American politics is nowhere nearly as dirty as it used to be.

Maybe...which is why I don't get why anyone should complain about it...####### for tat, par for the course, comes with the territory, etc., etc.

Hey, I like it. I don't complain.

I wish it were dirtier.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps they don't. While I don't particularly care for Bush, I don't vehemently hate the man as many do. Even here, there are numerous posters who will pass off any minor transgression made as "he's such a worthless moron" if Bush did it. In other words, they're allowing their own feelings to come between them and objective analysis..

Understanding that, I could see why many who consider themselves Republicans or at least, conservatives, have no wish to talk to anyone who engages in criticizing the president. Far too frequently, the criticism is simply based on pure nasty, spiteful, hatred.

That may be - but I suspect it has a lot to do with the perpetual partisan divide that a person must be either liberal or conservative and never the twain shall meet.

In short, its easier to generalise about other people.

Those on the Right had to see it coming...after 8 years of constant clammering over Clinton, particularly by right wing pundits like Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh....they had to expect the same courtesy would be extended to Dubbya. And it just so happens that Bush has made it all too easy. There will always be a part of the political dialogue focused on the lampooning or all out character assasination of the sitting president. It will happen to either McCain or Obama. However, those who wish to sympathize with the President shouldn't dismiss any criticism as unfair scrutiny (bashing).

Deserved or no - purely as an outsider I don't see it being particularly useful in terms of substantial dialog to always be blaming the other guy.

There's something to be said for having restraint and maturity. Unfortunately our political discourses have neither.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Perhaps they don't. While I don't particularly care for Bush, I don't vehemently hate the man as many do. Even here, there are numerous posters who will pass off any minor transgression made as "he's such a worthless moron" if Bush did it. In other words, they're allowing their own feelings to come between them and objective analysis..

Understanding that, I could see why many who consider themselves Republicans or at least, conservatives, have no wish to talk to anyone who engages in criticizing the president. Far too frequently, the criticism is simply based on pure nasty, spiteful, hatred.

That may be - but I suspect it has a lot to do with the perpetual partisan divide that a person must be either liberal or conservative and never the twain shall meet.

In short, its easier to generalise about other people.

Those on the Right had to see it coming...after 8 years of constant clammering over Clinton, particularly by right wing pundits like Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh....they had to expect the same courtesy would be extended to Dubbya. And it just so happens that Bush has made it all too easy. There will always be a part of the political dialogue focused on the lampooning or all out character assasination of the sitting president. It will happen to either McCain or Obama. However, those who wish to sympathize with the President shouldn't dismiss any criticism as unfair scrutiny (bashing).

Deserved or no - purely as an outsider I don't see it being particularly useful in terms of substantial dialog to always be blaming the other guy.

There's something to be said for having restraint and maturity. Unfortunately our political discourses have neither.

I agree, but the best way to deal with low brow attacks is to ignore them. Lampooning, IMO, is different from merely being vitriolic about the sitting President.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps they don't. While I don't particularly care for Bush, I don't vehemently hate the man as many do. Even here, there are numerous posters who will pass off any minor transgression made as "he's such a worthless moron" if Bush did it. In other words, they're allowing their own feelings to come between them and objective analysis..

Understanding that, I could see why many who consider themselves Republicans or at least, conservatives, have no wish to talk to anyone who engages in criticizing the president. Far too frequently, the criticism is simply based on pure nasty, spiteful, hatred.

That may be - but I suspect it has a lot to do with the perpetual partisan divide that a person must be either liberal or conservative and never the twain shall meet.

In short, its easier to generalise about other people.

Those on the Right had to see it coming...after 8 years of constant clammering over Clinton, particularly by right wing pundits like Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh....they had to expect the same courtesy would be extended to Dubbya. And it just so happens that Bush has made it all too easy. There will always be a part of the political dialogue focused on the lampooning or all out character assasination of the sitting president. It will happen to either McCain or Obama. However, those who wish to sympathize with the President shouldn't dismiss any criticism as unfair scrutiny (bashing).

Deserved or no - purely as an outsider I don't see it being particularly useful in terms of substantial dialog to always be blaming the other guy.

There's something to be said for having restraint and maturity. Unfortunately our political discourses have neither.

I agree, but the best way to deal with low brow attacks is to ignore them. Lampooning, IMO, is different from merely being vitriolic about the sitting President.

Well cracks about W's intelligence have been kicking around for years - I do think there is some merit to this though - largely in that he doesn't seem qualified for the office he holds (bearing in mind this is the guy who almost caused a Constitutional crisis over a "right to life" issue, tried to get his woefully underqualified personal lawyer appointed to the Supreme Court, and had to defer to "the secretary" when quizzed by a reporter about the US' policy on torture and how it applied to independent contractors).

Not exactly shrewd, well-thought out positions - or the mark of someone with his finger on the pulse.

[zqt3344 21]

Curious, what is the highest level of each of your education compared to GWB! And at least he was a president unlike some others on here bashing him. Typical, jealous of W are you!

Perhaps they don't. While I don't particularly care for Bush, I don't vehemently hate the man as many do. Even here, there are numerous posters who will pass off any minor transgression made as "he's such a worthless moron" if Bush did it. In other words, they're allowing their own feelings to come between them and objective analysis..

Understanding that, I could see why many who consider themselves Republicans or at least, conservatives, have no wish to talk to anyone who engages in criticizing the president. Far too frequently, the criticism is simply based on pure nasty, spiteful, hatred.

That may be - but I suspect it has a lot to do with the perpetual partisan divide that a person must be either liberal or conservative and never the twain shall meet.

In short, its easier to generalise about other people.

Those on the Right had to see it coming...after 8 years of constant clammering over Clinton, particularly by right wing pundits like Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh....they had to expect the same courtesy would be extended to Dubbya. And it just so happens that Bush has made it all too easy. There will always be a part of the political dialogue focused on the lampooning or all out character assasination of the sitting president. It will happen to either McCain or Obama. However, those who wish to sympathize with the President shouldn't dismiss any criticism as unfair scrutiny (bashing).

Deserved or no - purely as an outsider I don't see it being particularly useful in terms of substantial dialog to always be blaming the other guy.

There's something to be said for having restraint and maturity. Unfortunately our political discourses have neither.

I agree, but the best way to deal with low brow attacks is to ignore them. Lampooning, IMO, is different from merely being vitriolic about the sitting President.

Well cracks about W's intelligence have been kicking around for years - I do think there is some merit to this though - largely in that he doesn't seem qualified for the office he holds (bearing in mind this is the guy who almost caused a Constitutional crisis over a "right to life" issue, tried to get his woefully underqualified personal lawyer appointed to the Supreme Court, and had to defer to "the secretary" when quizzed by a reporter about the US' policy on torture and how it applied to independent contractors).

Not exactly shrewd, well-thought out positions - or the mark of someone with his finger on the pulse.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Curious, what is the highest level of each of your education compared to GWB! And at least he was a president unlike some others on here bashing him. Typical, jealous of W are you!

Perhaps you'll extend your suspension of criticism to previous presidents? For that matter what about Barack Obama? At least he has the opportunity to run for president which is more than most people can say...

Nah I don't think so either.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Number 6 is also critical of the Pope. Does he want to be Pope too?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Number 6 is also critical of the Pope. Does he want to be Pope too?

Actually I wouldn't mind being Cobra Commander, though I'm torn between that or Serpentor.