Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
George W Bush; On the right side of History?
Topic Started: Jan 20 2005, 10:58 PM (847 Views)
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
^Ok, I'm with you now. :lol:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Intrepid2002
Jan 21 2005, 08:42 PM
benetil
Jan 21 2005, 01:39 PM


I dislike President Bush more now than I have at any time during his presidency. May the next four years pass quickly.

If you dwell on it, it will be a long painful four years. Focus on something else. ;)

Good advice, Intrepid2002. I'll try not dwelling on the bass ackward agenda of Bush administration:

Bush foreign policy: war makes us safer, Saudi Arabia is our friend

Bush economic policy: huge deficits make our economy stronger, besides any economic difficulties were inherited from a previous administration

Bush environmental policy: dropping protections makes companies behave in a more responsible manner with the health and safety of the public in mind

Bush health policy: capping tort will deliver affordable health care to the millions of uninsured people in the country

Bush immigration policy: unnecessary to have one, see Presidente Fox for details

Also - thanks for the definitions. I'm glad that someone other than just me can see where the words I used might reflect certain aspects of President Bush's public image. I know that Bush supporters would object because the definitions are not particularly complimentary.
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
benetil
Jan 22 2005, 11:55 AM
I know that Bush supporters would object because the definitions are not particularly complimentary.

Or accurate, and to emotionally and hard feelings driven.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Intrepid2002
Jan 21 2005, 07:38 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 21 2005, 01:41 PM
Quote:
 
I dislike President Bush more now than I have at any time during his presidency.


Sighhhh... what has he done now, Benetil?

P.S. Look up "sanctimonius", "apocalyptic", and "zealot" for me and tell me how any of them apply to PRESIDENT Bush.


From the Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: sanc·ti·mo·nious
Pronunciation: "sa[ng](k)-t&-'mO-nE-&s, -ny&s
Function: adjective
1 : affecting piousness : hypocritically devout; also : indicative of affected piousness <the king's sanctimonious rebuke -- G. B. Shaw>
2 obsolete : possessing sanctity : HOLY
- sanc·ti·mo·nious·ly adverb
- sanc·ti·mo·nious·ness noun


Main Entry: apoc·a·lyp·tic
Pronunciation: &-"pä-k&-'lip-tik
Variant(s): also apoc·a·lyp·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or resembling an apocalypse
2 : forecasting the ultimate destiny of the world : PROPHETIC
3 : foreboding imminent disaster or final doom : TERRIBLE
4 : wildly unrestrained : GRANDIOSE
5 : ultimately decisive : CLIMACTIC
- apoc·a·lyp·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


Main Entry: zeal·ot
Pronunciation: 'ze-l&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zElOtEs, from zElos
1 capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century A.D. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine
2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan



Main Entry: pi·ous
Pronunciation: 'pI-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin pius
1 a : marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship b : marked by conspicuous religiosity <a hypocrite--a thing all pious words and uncharitable deeds -- Charles Reade>
2 : sacred or devotional as distinct from the profane or secular : RELIGIOUS <a pious opinion>
3 : showing loyal reverence for a person or thing : DUTIFUL
4 a : marked by sham or hypocrisy b : marked by self-conscious virtue : VIRTUOUS
5 : deserving commendation : WORTHY <a pious effort>
- pi·ous·ly adverb
- pi·ous·ness noun


:rotfl:

Sorry, I couldn't resist. You have to admit. Some of these apply. I guess it all depends on how you choose to interpret the definitions. Based on the president's last four years, those definitions most certainly could apply. But that's just my liberal lefty biased opinion. :D

Have you decided to change your name, Intrepid? Just curious... :shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Data's Cat's Sister
Member Avatar
Commodore
1. No
2. Yes (or something similiar if there are something other then boats by then)
3. No
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Bush is doing just fine. I have absolutely no idea why people don't like what the man is doing in office.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Fesarius
Jan 22 2005, 03:17 PM
Bush is doing just fine. I have absolutely no idea why people don't like what the man is doing in office.


I can see and understand the point of view of those who are unhappy with him and the decisions he is making. It makes sense not every one is of the same mind on every issue. What I don’t understand and find funny and sad actually are those who try to paint Bush as the anti-Christ. But if it helps them deal with their emotions why not let them do what makes them feel good. This is after all America, the land of "ME" and the home of the selfish.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
That's right, and what you've written is actually more to my point. It's one thing to disagree, but to hate the man is another thing altogether.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
I don't hate the man- I really don't think that You can hate a person without meeting them (there are very few people I hate) I loathe the policy decisions he makes, and find many aspects of his presidency most disurbing, but I don't hate the man. Just the fake photo op Uniform.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Cptjeff,

I was speaking generally. That's the second time that that has happened. My posts are often directed at no one; rather, they are statements often meant only to be thought about.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
Yes
Yes
No
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
cptjeff
Jan 22 2005, 04:01 PM
I don't hate the man- I really don't think that You can hate a person without meeting them (there are very few people I hate) I loathe the policy decisions he makes, and find many aspects of his presidency most disurbing, but I don't hate the man. Just the fake photo op Uniform.

But my point is that I just don’t get words like "loathe" or "disturbing" no matter what part of the man or his presidency you are talking about. It makes me think, ether you are over reacting, don’t have a keen grasp of realty, or you are a every angry person (in general, not just on this issue). I save words like Loath or disturbing when I think about the acts of people like Hitler and ect. Their deeds and acts where loathsome and disturbing. At best Bush’s acts and deeds are stupid and misguided, nothing to loath or be disturbed about, just something to stop. Look at it this why, there are people who disagreed with Clintons polices as much as you disagree with Bush’s polices, what would you think of those people who say they loath and are disturbed by Clinton. Me for example, as time goes by, am every unhappy with Clinton (a man I supported at the time) and what he did while in office. But just because I am unhappy with him does not mean I loathe him or his policies – I just disagree with him/them.

Bottom line words mean things, and words like Loathe, disturbed, apocalyptic, zealot, pious carry even greater weight then other words. To throw them around as if they are everyday words does a disservice to the situation on which you are using them (by elevating it more then it should, causing unneeded problems), and it does a disservice to situations where the words should be used (by down grading them to the level of the current situation)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
Dandandat
Jan 22 2005, 04:01 PM
cptjeff
Jan 22 2005, 04:01 PM
I don't hate the man- I really don't think that You can hate a person without meeting them (there are very few people I hate) I loathe the policy decisions he makes, and find many aspects of his presidency most disurbing, but I don't hate the man. Just the fake photo op Uniform.

But my point is that I just don’t get words like "loathe" or "disturbing" no matter what part of the man or his presidency you are talking about. It makes me think, ether you are over reacting, don’t have a keen grasp of realty, or you are a every angry person (in general, not just on this issue). I save words like Loath or disturbing when I think about the acts of people like Hitler and ect. Their deeds and acts where loathsome and disturbing. At best Bush’s acts and deeds are stupid and misguided, nothing to loath or be disturbed about, just something to stop. Look at it this why, there are people who disagreed with Clintons polices as much as you disagree with Bush’s polices, what would you think of those people who say they loath and are disturbed by Clinton. Me for example, as time goes by, am every unhappy with Clinton (a man I supported at the time) and what he did while in office. But just because I am unhappy with him does not mean I loathe him or his policies – I just disagree with him/them.

Bottom line words mean things, and words like Loathe, disturbed, apocalyptic, zealot, pious carry even greater weight then other words. To throw them around as if they are everyday words does a disservice to the situation on which you are using them (by elevating it more then it should, causing unneeded problems), and it does a disservice to situations where the words should be used (by down grading them to the level of the current situation)

agian, very well said.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Jan 22 2005, 05:01 PM
cptjeff
Jan 22 2005, 04:01 PM
I don't hate the man- I really don't think that You can hate a person without meeting them (there are very few people I hate) I loathe the policy decisions he makes, and find many aspects of his presidency most disurbing, but I don't hate the man. Just the fake photo op Uniform.

But my point is that I just don’t get words like "loathe" or "disturbing" no matter what part of the man or his presidency you are talking about. It makes me think, ether you are over reacting, don’t have a keen grasp of realty, or you are a every angry person (in general, not just on this issue). I save words like Loath or disturbing when I think about the acts of people like Hitler and ect. Their deeds and acts where loathsome and disturbing. At best Bush’s acts and deeds are stupid and misguided, nothing to loath or be disturbed about, just something to stop. Look at it this why, there are people who disagreed with Clintons polices as much as you disagree with Bush’s polices, what would you think of those people who say they loath and are disturbed by Clinton. Me for example, as time goes by, am every unhappy with Clinton (a man I supported at the time) and what he did while in office. But just because I am unhappy with him does not mean I loathe him or his policies – I just disagree with him/them.

Bottom line words mean things, and words like Loathe, disturbed, apocalyptic, zealot, pious carry even greater weight then other words. To throw them around as if they are everyday words does a disservice to the situation on which you are using them (by elevating it more then it should, causing unneeded problems), and it does a disservice to situations where the words should be used (by down grading them to the level of the current situation)

Some on this board have said they loath Clinton. In fact the person I am thinking up specifically said he respected the office of the President, but loathed the person in the office at the time.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Jan 22 2005, 06:11 PM
Some on this board have said they loath Clinton. In fact the person I am thinking up specifically said he respected the office of the President, but loathed the person in the office at the time.

Did I say it didn’t go booth ways? I just said I didn’t understand such feelings and found them funny and sad.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus