English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm a conservative and I've been wondering why liberals hate Bush so much, calling him a terrorist and Hitler. Please don't answer my question saying that he meddled into wars, please tell me WHY you think he shouldn't have meddled into wars (besides the cliche that people die, where would we be without fighting Hitler, for example? sacrifices have to be made for the greater good and sometimes the enemy has to die). PLEASE explain your answer thouroughly instead of being a parrot and saying the same nonsense over and over again. Conservatives, you can answer too. By the way I'M NOT ATTACKING ANYBODY-I'm just trying to understand.

2006-09-07 14:27:52 · 23 answers · asked by Aint No Bugs On Me 4 in Politics & Government Politics

OMG so many good answers! I can't pick which one! I don't like the way those liberals pick on Bush here but some of them have good reasons.

2006-09-08 14:57:17 · update #1

23 answers

This was by a poster on the History Channel message board - and this guy made a lot of sense - so I thought I would show you his post:

Why do Liberals hate President Bush so much?
By John Hawkins


Why do they hate him so much? They'll give you every reason in the book for it, but in my opinion, most of it is really all about four things:

#1) A lot of Democrats felt cheated after Gore lost in Florida. Were they cheated? Absolutely not. But, they FELT cheated and they got angry at Bush because of it.

#2) Many Republicans absolutely despised Bill Clinton and part of the animus towards Bush is just payback. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is really the primary driving factor behind the impeachment talk. They're desperate to try to impeach Bush, for anything and everything they can come up with, because the Republicans impeached Clinton.

#3) During the Vietnam war, the libs protested incessantly, they spit on soldiers, and they became radicalized. It's the same dynamic this time around, except back then, it was Lyndon Johnson who was really responsible for getting the war into full swing. So, there was more bi-partisan blame for them to spread around. The war in Iraq is Bush's war all the way and so most of the venom is getting aimed at him.

#4) The Democrats are out of power and that's making them more bitter, more willing to accept conspiracy theories, and more angry at the guy who has beaten them, George Bush.

Bonus Answer: The left has actually been nasty, angry, and vicious for a long time now. For example, they absolutely hated Ronald Reagan's guts and had few qualms about saying so. So, why didn't people notice it more back then? Because there wasn't a new media out there to report it and the old media, as they do today, protects "their side." A kooky or vicious comment by a liberal is much, much, more likely to be buried, minimized, or completely ignored by the MSM than a similar comment by a conservative. The difference is that now there's an alternative media that reports things that would have been swept under the rug 10 or 20 years.

2006-09-07 14:45:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

I am a conservative also! The way I see it, is the liberals do not really hate Bush as a person, he is a symbol! He has made a lot of decisions that were not made in the 8 yrs pry or to his getting into office. He has tried to make this country a safer place, We have only been hit once since he became president. As Bush said We have to be right 100% of the time , the terrorist only 1 time.
I think they are using any excuse they can find , so they can win the election in 2008. If it means , mudd slinging on Bush. They will do so to win the nest election.
And since the only platform the Democrats have is to be against something, instead of solutions for safety, etc.. Bush is the target. They know that is is the only one who really has done something , and will stick by what he believes in not matter what the Polls say. ,

2006-09-07 21:44:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

oh boy I have answered this question so many times on here. So I will try and make this one a bit different but it's hard to do because they haven't done ( the libs) anything different. I have nothing to prove this with but someone told me that when the "now" Democratic party leaders were working on a stradigy to re-gain their power in 04 they asked a marketing icon on how they win in such a competitive area with different products that people use. He told them the first and best way is to discredit your opponient in every way possible.Damn they lost in 04 again! Are people just stupid or were we cheated again? We were cheated is getting old. Being that the libs in power now have no positive plan on the war on terror or how they can improve on a robust economy in a capatolistic society, they have decided to escelate their lies and hatred of Bush hoping that their followers won't look up facts but just listen to their hate spewing. I could give you so many examples of their lies but will just give you two. The libs say Bush's tax cuts are for the rich! And it was so much better under Clinton he was for the poor! Oh really...If you simply go to the library of congress web site you will see that under Clinton the poor paid 3% more taxes then under Clinton and the top 20% of the rich paid less under Clinton. OMG don't confuse the lib followers with facts. And what about the Valery Plane scandal? It was all over the news that Skooter Libby and Carl Rove didn't leak anything that it was a guy named Richard Amatage. Will the main stream media give Rove or Libby an apology? Hell no. Even though the leader of the investagation knew this from the start and still spent tax payers money on a bogus 2 year investagation. I could go on and on but I will leave some paper for the libs to answer your well worderd question. I'm curious to see if you get any ligitimate answers if I were a betting man I'd bet that you get more f... you, you blank blank. Then any real answers.. peace out

2006-09-07 22:15:37 · answer #3 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 0 1

As a liberal-
I think calling Bush a terrorist and Hitler is a bit extreme. And I don't hate the man himself, because I don't think it's necessarily him that is doing all these things, I think it is the fault of the Bush administration. For one thing, I don't think we had a good reason to go into Iraq. He gave Hussein a ultimatum, to give up his nuclear weapons or we will declare war. Well, he didn't give them up, for a good reason, he didn't have any. But we went to war anyway. And now that we are there, we aren't accomplishing much, but a lot of lives are being lost, either American, or Iraqi civilian, etc. Sure, Hussein is gone, but the terrorism goes on. I dislike the way Bush brings up 9/11 every time he gives reason for the war in Iraq. Osama bin Laden isn't in Iraq. He's in Afghanistan, where we started, and haven't finished. There are tons of other reasons too, but the list is too long. So there is my opinion. Take it or leave it.

2006-09-07 21:39:24 · answer #4 · answered by akhaiyan 3 · 2 0

First, a person need not be a Liberal to dislike Bush...no longer are we required by national unity or crap like that to blindly accept the President for anything and everything that comes from his/her presidential mouth.
Why shouldn't we meddle in wars? Well, specifically speaking of Iraq and the war on terror, Iraq did not attack us, but those who did either cannot be found or are already dead.
The war in Iraq is indeed about profit...not oil profits, but rebuilding and such, like contracts enjoyed by Halliburton and others.
Yes, for the sake of peace, sacrifices must be made. But at what point do the Iraqi people need to step up to the plate and deal with their issues like America did in their own Civil War in the 1800's?
If America had factions of religious or ethnic groups fighting in the streets, bombing line-ups at recruitment centers, and American suicide bombers running into a crowd before setting the explosive device off, would we allow another country to bring it's military into the U.S. to take care of the problem??
Most assuredly NOT.
If the war in Iraq is a part of a greater war on terror, then why aren't troops invading Syria and Iran right now? What about the hundreds of terrorist organisations around the world that have yet to feel the wrath of Bush's war on terror?
To me, the war on terror is a good idea, but as much a fallicy as the war on drugs...that is, there is more money to be made in fighting the problem than solving it...otherwise the issue(s) would easily be resolved if we had the b*lls to eradicate it fully and finally. BOOOOOM!

2006-09-07 22:15:00 · answer #5 · answered by Mani V 2 · 1 1

Let me start with the fact that I am a moderate..the ones who should REALLY be in control since conservatives and liberals have both gone insane with power

OK reason number 1..he spits on the US Constitution he swore to uphold and defend on a daily basis

Reason number 2..he got us into a 2 front war for reasons that were absurd..strikes I could see but taking over 2 other countries and saying it was better while alienating the entire world?

Reason number 3..he's a moron..literally

Reason 4..as he himself has said his only judge is Jesus...oh well heaven forbid he listen to the people as his entire job is supposed to be about.

Reason 5...he has this idiotic,moronic and traitorious idea that we should be legislating marriage...government was setup to PREVENT this stuff but him and his little black book are gonna crawl right up everyones' rectum whether we like it or not

Reason 6..His Vice President SHOT A MAN IN THE FACE..did not report it till the next day, blamed it on the other guy for looking like a bird, AND NOTHING HAPPENED!!!!!! I MEAN WE IMPEACHED CLINTON FOR A GODDAMN BJ..SHOULDN'T ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON HAVE A CONSEQUENCE????????????

Reason 7 Bush is 90% responsible for 9/11 and blamed it on Clinton.

Reason 8 Bush is 100% repsonsible for the crappy economy and blamed it on Clinton

Reason 9..after all the wars we have gained almost no new ground on the terrorists..we should have fought them 1st then moved to Iraq,Iran,Afganistan,Japan,England,Germany,Canada and every other country this guy is gonna attack because they look at him cross eyed

Do I really need to go on..this man declared he is immune from any law he doesn't agree with...HELLO?!

I will end with..yes some of my responses are a little exagerated but I truly and deeply hate this thing called President Bush since in it's very heart it hates America

2006-09-07 21:44:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I'm a liberal, and I don't hate Bush, after all, I don't even know him. I do hate what he is doing to this country.

We are currently in a war that we never had any business being in in the first place. Iraq didn't do anything to us.

Now he wants to do the same thing in Iran. This is why the Middle East hates us, we keep strong-arming our way into their territory and leave behind a mess.

Also, I don't like that Bush is trying to force his religious views on America. America has a little thing called "Separation of Church and State" which says that the church has no place in the government and he vetoes bills and makes plays against equal rights amendments for his religious supporters. This is not good behavior for a president to be so anti-anything.

Anyway, those are some of my reasons. I hope that helped and that I didn't come across too strong, I tried not to.

2006-09-07 21:43:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

It will probably be impossible to get through to you but I do not hate George Bush, I just do not like the direction he has taken this country and how he has divided it. The one war in Afghanistan was probably necessary although we have not been able to finish our objective because of the other war in Iraq. He has spread us to thin, for no real good reason. Saddam was captive in his own country, he was well contained, there was no WMD's and we have no business getting out good solders killed to make another country in our image. The Iraqi people will never accept a puppet government set up by the U.S. They are in a civil war that is killing thousands of innocent people because we meddled. I do not like his tax cuts for the very rich because to lift from the top is the wrong way when you lift from the bottom everything moves. If you lift from the top only the top moves. While there is enough blame to go around his handling of hurricane Katrina was awful. He has broken both our laws and international law and has trampled on the constitution in the name of the war on terror. The gas prices are a direct result of his mishandling of the war in Iraq. He created much instability in the region giving the oil company's an excuse to triple prices. I can go on but this is probably longer then you will read anyway. But these are the reason why I think that Bush should be removed from office and replaced.

2006-09-07 21:40:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

The War Against Terrorism isn't so bad, but the war in Iraq is and always was a pointless, dangerous waste of money, resources and human life. Not to mention that it was based on a lie.

And then there is the dangerous and blatant pandering to the religious right in affairs such as abortion, teaching the Theory Of Evolution, and gay marriage.

Must I go on?

MightyT, your History Channel friend is wrong. I'll give him credit for being a pretty good communicator and smooth talker for a conservative, but nonetheless he is spreading falsehoods.

2006-09-07 22:08:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I often wonder exactly the opposite "How does anybody trust this guy" I have a laundry list of reasons that I strongly do not like Bush but I will highlight three. 1. He has purposely and intentionally and as of yesterday admittedly broken several of the Geneva conventions all in the name of saving America from terrorists, along the same lines he has repeatedly undermined our constitutional right to a certain amount of privacy, all in the name of terror. These are rules and regulations set up to protect people from people like him and he has no problems admitting that this is what he is doing and what boggles my mind is how anyone can back a government agency tapping the phone lines of any American without a warrant and no one seems to cry fowl. 2. I am firmly against anyone who would purposely deny anyone basic human rights and his choice to support a ban on Gay marriage is not only wrong it is unconstitutional. There are rights that married couples have, and denying an entire group of people rights based on something like religion or ethnicity or sexual orientation is wrong. I am not sure what your situation is, I am straight, but as a human I can not imagine telling someone you can not go in that hospital room to see the person you love and have had a long term monogamous relationship with who is in there on their death bed because you happen to like the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex. No one would sit back and allow him to do that to any other group of people, what if he had supported a ban on Jewish marriages, people would riot so why is it ok with this group? 3. I sat next to my 25 year old best friend at at her Husbands funeral last week who was killed in Iraq it is not just the enemy who is dying and I understand that wars have to be fought but this war is a lie. When asked yesterday the status of the war on terror he began to explain, that in Iraq, when a reporter cut him off and asked what does the war in Iraq have to do with war on Terror he had no answer and after a long silence said "nothing". Nothing is exactly right Iraq is not the breeding ground for terror if he had come out and said we in America uses a ton of oil, we don't want to run out of ours so we have to get it from somewhere, and we might have to take it by force, then I can't say I would support it but I could respect it, but that's not what happened he lied to us and told us there was WMD and it turns out that was lie and he purposely led the American people to believe that there was a connection between 9:11 and Iraq when there is not and in my opinion he holds a responsibility in the death of a loved one.

2006-09-07 22:14:25 · answer #10 · answered by conburstt 1 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers