I'm extremely impressed by the objectivity of the article you presented, and the clearly-sourced evidence it provided to support the conclusions it presented.
In the real world, the "article" you provided is yet another partisan hack at anybody who doesn't support the policies of the current administration. It premises its entire argument with a quote from a conservative pundit by the name of Charles Krauthammer.
This "definition" of "Bush derangement syndrome" is very easily disproven by the most mundane of logic. "The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people" has got to be some sort of logical fallacy, as the people who froth at the mouth are the same abnormal people who'd do that to any president they disagree with. Likewise the vast majority of the population expresses a quiet dissent with President Bush, evident in polls and at the voting booth, yet not particularly evident in protests. As for "the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush", Krauthammer falls deeply into the mire of partisan bias. The very existence of George W. Bush is easily disproven in the fact that his opposition nationally coincided with his candidacy nationally. Locally his opposition obviously would have begun earlier, but even then it is safe to conclude that nobody significant experienced an "acute onset of paranoia" when George H.W. Bush had his child. That his presidency is the key factor may be true in some extremely partisan cases, and I understand Mr. Krauthammer's viewpoint here, because he in fact is partisan enough to oppose a Democrat's presidency simply because he is a Democrat. Nonetheless, the vast majority of President Bush's dissent lies in disagreement with policy and his lacking achievements as the President of the United States. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is a safe assessment to say that the majority of Americans base their opposition to the President off tangible issues such as a controversial war, tax cuts steeply favoring the wealthy, and the like.
Your "objective" "article" then proceeds to compare dissenting citizens to "barbarians" and "thugs" and proceeds to imply that they are terrorists by describing them as "indistinguishable from the barbarians we are currently fighting". It then turns to the "average voter" and implies that the two dominant reasons they wouldn't vote for Bush in 2000 were due to media propaganda or party alignment. For a President who lost the popular vote in 2000 to Al Gore, there's a lot to be said about Al Gore's popularity amongst the voters, for a variety of reasons.
Honestly, I'm done with this rot. You keep posting this nonsense, and I'm going to put you on ignore. I was initially interested in you as a debater, Spyridon. Your use of completely biased and partisan blogs as "evidence" and your continual hacking at every single Democrat on the table while you claim neutrality speaks a great deal about your intellectual honesty and independent thought.
-Elias
Upvote
0
