W(TF)
It started innocently enough (I'm cutting stuff out, so if you want to see everything, go visit adelaide)
Yeah, it was a bad pun, and a Molotov cocktail of a blog reply. I probably shouldn't have posted it, given Dignal's tendency to delete things from her blog. She seems to want to keep it friendly over there, and I should have respected that.
But I don't understand why someone would have such fandom or reverence for a government worker. He's an executive. He's not a king. He's not a god. He's not the human embodiment of the spirit of the United States. The president just gets to be a celebrity just because he's a visible powerful person with an important job. I can hate him as easily as you can love him, and with as much validity.
In short, Dignal didn't like my little jab. If she finds it intolerable, she can delete it from her webspace. Luckily I have my own and I'll gladly serve as a lightning rod for any more flames.
Ah, an unsubstantiated opinion about my unsubstantiated opinion. It took some restraint to keep from responding, but this bothered me. I kept thinking up snappy retorts to give to anonymous, who either: 1. left and never came back, or 2. is still waiting to flame me more when I reply. He's right. I am a very arrogant person. Anybody who knows me will tell you that. Does everyone know the one about how fighting on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics?
I don't know when it became unacceptable to simply dislike someone without some kind of hard evidence. When I write something like the above, very often I'm exploring the issue in my mind for the first time. Sometimes it comes out wrong, but when my mind is in such an open and honest state, I make no apologies for what I may say. I really am simply attempting to figure out what I have against Bush. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
George W. Bush is a stud.
posted by The Dignal at 9:33 AM
Textual Harassment said...
If you mean he's dumb as a 2x4, THEN I AGREE.
I'm so clever.
4:36 PM
Yeah, it was a bad pun, and a Molotov cocktail of a blog reply. I probably shouldn't have posted it, given Dignal's tendency to delete things from her blog. She seems to want to keep it friendly over there, and I should have respected that.
But I don't understand why someone would have such fandom or reverence for a government worker. He's an executive. He's not a king. He's not a god. He's not the human embodiment of the spirit of the United States. The president just gets to be a celebrity just because he's a visible powerful person with an important job. I can hate him as easily as you can love him, and with as much validity.
The Dignal Said(in part)...
I disagree with your statement. Not only do I not appreciate, but I do not tolertate what you have to say about our President. I thank God in Heaven I can place my trust and confidence in the fruits of the Oval Office for this simple reason: George W. Bush walks in the Spirit.
**removed supporting arguments that the reader can see at the above link**
In short, Dignal didn't like my little jab. If she finds it intolerable, she can delete it from her webspace. Luckily I have my own and I'll gladly serve as a lightning rod for any more flames.
Textual Harassment said...
Well, I thought it was funny. Non-PC and completely uncalled-for, but funny.
**removed stuff that didn't need to be said in the first place but is still true**
It's OK if Bush is not a smooth talker, or if he has trouble pronouncing some words. He's only a man, and for that reason he can even be forgiven for whatever mistakes he makes in office. I could never be the president. I'm too honest. Even if somehow I did get elected, I'd screw something up.
But I look into his face when I see him on television and I can't stand it. I want to be able to tell whether he is good or bad, or genuine or fake, and I can't because I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING THERE behind his eyes and grinning face. I have the feeling that if I met him in person he'd have nothing important to say to me, and I'd despise him. I suspect he's an idiot, but one with good intentions.
6:48 PM
Anonymous said...
Textual Harassment, I do not know you, nor do I wish to. However, I guess everyone is entitled to there own opinion, no matter how arrogant they may be, and judging by your previous remarks, arrogant would be an understatement. Your comments and views from what you have written, have no substantial reasoning behind them. I mean what kind of reason for not approving of George Bush is this; "I want to be able to tell whether he is good or bad, or genuine or fake, and I can't because I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING THERE behind his eyes and grinning face." If you want to express yourself, and your disaprovel of the President, then by all means go ahead and do so, that is what FREEDOM is all about. I just want to encourage you, my friend, next time you want to say something, be sure to have some type of reasonable support to back up your claim, otherwise you're just blowing air out of your butt, and we all know how that smells!
Ah, an unsubstantiated opinion about my unsubstantiated opinion. It took some restraint to keep from responding, but this bothered me. I kept thinking up snappy retorts to give to anonymous, who either: 1. left and never came back, or 2. is still waiting to flame me more when I reply. He's right. I am a very arrogant person. Anybody who knows me will tell you that. Does everyone know the one about how fighting on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics?
I don't know when it became unacceptable to simply dislike someone without some kind of hard evidence. When I write something like the above, very often I'm exploring the issue in my mind for the first time. Sometimes it comes out wrong, but when my mind is in such an open and honest state, I make no apologies for what I may say. I really am simply attempting to figure out what I have against Bush. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
posted by Textual Harassment at 12:08 AM
2 Comments:
It's irreleveant to me whether he "walks in the spirit" or not. Anyone can tell you they are trying to do God's will. Furthermore, I don't believe it's his job to what his heart tells him. He's a servant of the people.
I don't think Sarah is wrong for respecting him, but I just don't feel the same way. I'm really kind of sorry I invaded her blog post in the way I did.
I didn't catch the inauguration, but I saw a show about it on PBS last night(now you know what's wrong with me: I watch PBS) in which it was mentioned that Bush listed "stopping tyranny around the world" among his goals as president. That's a lofty and noble goal, and I would love to see it happen, but is that really the US's role in the world? The rest of the world thinks we're arrogant enough already. This statement was just one example of a trend I've noticed in the President's attitude.
I realised that Bush's unrelenting idealism and bravado is what bothers me. My first inclination is that he's just blowing smoke; that he's saying what the public wants to hear. But then I wonder, what if he believes in his own rhetoric? I turned to may dad, who had been watching the same show, and I said, "I can't tell whether (Bush) is serious or not, and... I don't know that it's any better for him to be serious than to be lying. My dad told me he knew just what I meant.
I do hate it when people refer to Dubya as if he's the Second Coming. He and many others believe that God wants him to be President. I saw this guy on the news during the campaign saying "When you are President, I truly feel that God is in the White House." That's not just fandom - it's obsession. And kind of creepy.
I also hate Internet fights. The Anonymous comment was completely insane.
Post a Comment
or go Back