And, excuse me again, but I call bullshit on this, too: And more importantly, what does this have to do with 9/11? You hated him before, and why should he change his domestic policy to please you afterwards?
The world changed after September 11th. Is it too much to ask that our President do as well? His domestic policy did change--for the worse. He cultivated fear instead of caution, blackmailing us to believe our safety depended solely on letting him do as he wanted. I resent that he abused and exploited the memories of the attacks to make paranoid people in this country and that he hasn't delivered on the few good promises he made.
He doesn't have to change his policy to "please me." What the hell kind of grade-school debater do you think I am? What, do you imagine I go home crying each day because the meanie president wont' do what I tell him? Waaaaaah, I am clearly some kind of adult child who simply cannot take it when she doesn't get her way.
I am entitled to dislike the man whether he feeds the fundies or he does a puppet walk for the liberal elite, first off. I liked Clinton's managerial approach, but didn't like the man. Do I dislike Bush's policy and tactics? Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I also dislike him personally? Yes. Do I, as you implied, confuse the two? Hardly. I am grown up enough to sublimate personal dislike in a debate. I dislike his post-September 11th policies in the extreme. Why should he change policy to suit people like me? Well, ideally, as his policies before 2001 didn't please me, if he wanted to unify people, truly, and keep them unified, he'd have to extend an olive branch to liberals. That, and he would need them to win again, in most thinkings. Turns out he didn't, which irritates me, but again, because of the tactics I deplore, and as a separate irritation from his twangy abuse of English.
I haven't called you on it before, but I'm sure as hell doing it now: knock off the patronizing schtick. Are you more read on some of this stuff? Fine. If you think I'm underread, perhaps not sourcing my objections with conciseness, fine. Say it to my face. Do not adopt this tone of, "I'll have you know..." crap. I won't be condescended to, which I feel you do just about every time you rebut. You should be able to disagree with me without comparing me to fringe fanatics and accusing me of being a spoiled liberal crybaby.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 03:04 pm (UTC)And more importantly, what does this have to do with 9/11? You hated him before, and why should he change his domestic policy to please you afterwards?
The world changed after September 11th. Is it too much to ask that our President do as well? His domestic policy did change--for the worse. He cultivated fear instead of caution, blackmailing us to believe our safety depended solely on letting him do as he wanted. I resent that he abused and exploited the memories of the attacks to make paranoid people in this country and that he hasn't delivered on the few good promises he made.
He doesn't have to change his policy to "please me." What the hell kind of grade-school debater do you think I am? What, do you imagine I go home crying each day because the meanie president wont' do what I tell him? Waaaaaah, I am clearly some kind of adult child who simply cannot take it when she doesn't get her way.
I am entitled to dislike the man whether he feeds the fundies or he does a puppet walk for the liberal elite, first off. I liked Clinton's managerial approach, but didn't like the man. Do I dislike Bush's policy and tactics? Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I also dislike him personally? Yes. Do I, as you implied, confuse the two? Hardly. I am grown up enough to sublimate personal dislike in a debate. I dislike his post-September 11th policies in the extreme. Why should he change policy to suit people like me? Well, ideally, as his policies before 2001 didn't please me, if he wanted to unify people, truly, and keep them unified, he'd have to extend an olive branch to liberals. That, and he would need them to win again, in most thinkings. Turns out he didn't, which irritates me, but again, because of the tactics I deplore, and as a separate irritation from his twangy abuse of English.
I haven't called you on it before, but I'm sure as hell doing it now: knock off the patronizing schtick. Are you more read on some of this stuff? Fine. If you think I'm underread, perhaps not sourcing my objections with conciseness, fine. Say it to my face. Do not adopt this tone of, "I'll have you know..." crap. I won't be condescended to, which I feel you do just about every time you rebut. You should be able to disagree with me without comparing me to fringe fanatics and accusing me of being a spoiled liberal crybaby.