• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

bds - the history of.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: jman19
No, you are the one who doesn't understand - I'm not arguing against it's meaning, I am saying it has become a cheap label that is thrown around even when unjustified.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, it can be overused - just as neocon is. But you suggested it was and excuse for every complaint - and that just isn't the case. If there is rational disagreement with policy or action - that isn't BDS but when that disagreement becomes irrational(wildeyed rants) - it is BDS.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
No, you are the one who doesn't understand - I'm not arguing against it's meaning, I am saying it has become a cheap label that is thrown around even when unjustified.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, it can be overused - just as neocon is. But you suggested it was and excuse for every complaint - and that just isn't the case. If there is rational disagreement with policy or action - that isn't BDS but when that disagreement becomes irrational(wildeyed rants) - it is BDS.
Click to expand...

LOL, Lord knows nobody but a deranged persons goes on "wild-eyed rants" when politics are concerned.

Your believing your own press if you think BDS is anything but propaganda BS.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
No, you are the one who doesn't understand - I'm not arguing against it's meaning, I am saying it has become a cheap label that is thrown around even when unjustified.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, it can be overused - just as neocon is. But you suggested it was and excuse for every complaint - and that just isn't the case. If there is rational disagreement with policy or action - that isn't BDS but when that disagreement becomes irrational(wildeyed rants) - it is BDS.
Click to expand...

bingo. BDS is the term used when Bush is brought up/blamed when an issue about something/someone unrelated arises.

whenever someone points out that something is bad, leave it to the resident lib moonbats in here to compare how "Bush is worse", expecting that statemnet to somehow absolve the unrelated issue brought up originally. too many threads get derailed when libs obfuscate and deflect to Bush when he has absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion



 
Originally posted by: daveymark
bingo. BDS is the term used when Bush is brought up/blamed when an issue about something/someone unrelated arises.

whenever someone points out that something is bad, leave it to the resident lib moonbats in here to compare how "Bush is worse", expecting that statemnet to somehow absolve the unrelated issue brought up originally. too many threads get derailed when libs obfuscate and deflect to Bush when he has absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion
Click to expand...

This is true. Too often a topic being discussed will wind up at Bush and how bad his policies have been. But to be fair, he is the head of our nation, the key political figure in our country, the "leader of the free world" as it were. He is the most powerful man on the planet, and for six years, when he had a like-minded Congress backing him, there was virtually no legislation he wanted that didn't make it through (except for privatized social security). When someone has that much power politically, it is only natural that they will be brought up in political discussions. I agree that Bush doesn't need to be brought up in every thread, but many conservatives seem to object to Bush being brought up at all, even if his administration has played a role in shaping the current state of whatever the topic at hand is.

As for BDS, it's a buzzword that is absolutely meaningless. It essentially boils down to an ad hominem attack (saying that someone has a derangement), and ignoring the actual issue being addressed. In that regard it's the same as calling someone neocon, though it seems to me that people who use the term neocon tend to back up that ad hom with some sort of additional argument. People who say "BDS" have a tendency to presume that it stands alone, a fitting defense to absolutely any critique of the President. It's decidedly poor argumentation, the adult equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
 
Bush is the decider, just ask him. Of course when it's not going his way then it's the responsibility of someone else. "Heck of a job, Brownie". 😉
 
How many murders was Clinton supposed to have been involved in?

It's the same partisan bullsh!t.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
No, you are the one who doesn't understand - I'm not arguing against it's meaning, I am saying it has become a cheap label that is thrown around even when unjustified.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, it can be overused - just as neocon is. But you suggested it was and excuse for every complaint - and that just isn't the case. If there is rational disagreement with policy or action - that isn't BDS but when that disagreement becomes irrational(wildeyed rants) - it is BDS.
Click to expand...

Um yea, once again my point is that it is not used correctly - it has become a catchall phrase that used to make people who disagree with a certain point of view look like a "looney".

I know this happens on both sides, but this thread is about B.D.S...
 
Considering the incredible abmount of bullshit posted by the lying, brown nosing Bushwhacko sycophants, I'm proud to be called a "BDSer" on AT P&N. :thumbsup: 😎
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think the most fascinating part of "B.D.S" is how it has become the catchall excuse for EVERY objection to Bush's policies or actions. I while admit that there are some people who have a pretty intense hatred of the President (although I disagree that he's the first President that's happened to), but that's not what we're talking about here. The "B.D.S" charge isn't reserved for the truly demented, it's leveled at every single person who dislikes Bush or his views. If you don't like his stance on social security, it's B.D.S. If you think he's wrong on Iraq, it's B.D.S. If you object to waterboarding, illegal wiretapping or secret prisons, it MUST be because of, oh let it come...B.D.S.
Click to expand...


This is where I think you're wrong. bds isn't thrown about whenever a disagreement arises on Bush's policy. it's used when someone on the left attempts to deflect the topic of conversation.

I'll give you a couple hypothetical examples of when you think bds term is used, vs when I think it is used:


When you think it is used:

Topic title: Has bush's foreign policy failed?

you: yes, bush's policy is a failure, as is bush himself
Me: bds!

the above rarely happens, and if it does, I'd accept being called out on it. I would never use the bds term in this situation, as the discussion is about Bush to begin with.

Now, here is when bds is appropriately used:

Topic: Hillary getting thousands in donations from chinese busboy

Me: if Hillary knew about this, she was wrong.
You: Not as wrong as Bush! He murdered thousands in an unjust war! TREASON!!!

Me: bds.

see the difference? in the first situation, the conversation is about bush. therefore there's no reason to assign the bds label. in the second situation, you came flying in with an accusation against bush, which lends absolutely NO credible argument to the topic and is an attempt at deflecting the conversation. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with a chinese busboy giving hillary money. hence, bds

keep in mind these are purely hypothetical situations.
 
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think the most fascinating part of "B.D.S" is how it has become the catchall excuse for EVERY objection to Bush's policies or actions. I while admit that there are some people who have a pretty intense hatred of the President (although I disagree that he's the first President that's happened to), but that's not what we're talking about here. The "B.D.S" charge isn't reserved for the truly demented, it's leveled at every single person who dislikes Bush or his views. If you don't like his stance on social security, it's B.D.S. If you think he's wrong on Iraq, it's B.D.S. If you object to waterboarding, illegal wiretapping or secret prisons, it MUST be because of, oh let it come...B.D.S.
Click to expand...


This is where I think you're wrong. bds isn't thrown about whenever a disagreement arises on Bush's policy. it's used when someone on the left attempts to deflect the topic of conversation.

I'll give you a couple hypothetical examples of when you think bds term is used, vs when I think it is used:


When you think it is used:

Topic title: Has bush's foreign policy failed?

you: yes, bush's policy is a failure, as is bush himself
Me: bds!

the above rarely happens, and if it does, I'd accept being called out on it. I would never use the bds term in this situation, as the discussion is about Bush to begin with.

Now, here is when bds is appropriately used:

Topic: Hillary getting thousands in donations from chinese busboy

Me: if Hillary knew about this, she was wrong.
You: Not as wrong as Bush! He murdered thousands in an unjust war! TREASON!!!

Me: bds.

see the difference? in the first situation, the conversation is about bush. therefore there's no reason to assign the bds label. in the second situation, you came flying in with an accusation against bush, which lends absolutely NO credible argument to the topic and is an attempt at deflecting the conversation. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with a chinese busboy giving hillary money. hence, bds

keep in mind these are purely hypothetical situations.
Click to expand...

A fair enough definition. Of course the problem isn't helped when the 2nd post in a non-bush thread says "blame-it-on-bush in 3..2..1.." I mean, at that point, we have to blame bush or risk a temporal paradox.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: yllus
I disagree. This level of negativity was most certainly found in those who were against Clinton during his presidency.
Click to expand...

I don't see that. Yes, there were those that "hated" him and everything he did(the fringe), however that level is nothing compared to what we have been seeing today.
Click to expand...

Huh? Impeachment?

I guess you are probably one of those war profiteers or someone who thinks they are a patriot and that their president can be a dictator.. since patriots never question the president...
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency?nay?the very existence of George W. Bush".

It looks to me that bds, while initially a "joke" has become more prevelent among many here in America(and even some abroad). Even during the height of negativity towards Clinton, there wasn't this level of hatred. While many of use disliked his policies and actions - it wasn't a reactionary hatred for the most part(minus the fringes who always have their panties in a bunch).
Click to expand...

Way to write up your own article to give legitimacy and then link it :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency?nay?the very existence of George W. Bush".

It looks to me that bds, while initially a "joke" has become more prevelent among many here in America(and even some abroad). Even during the height of negativity towards Clinton, there wasn't this level of hatred. While many of use disliked his policies and actions - it wasn't a reactionary hatred for the most part(minus the fringes who always have their panties in a bunch).
Click to expand...

Way to write up your own article to give legitimacy and then link it :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

:roll: I didn't write it. I just figured since it was being filtered out - I should post what BDS is in hopes the Mods/Admin would remove the filter. Mission Accomplished 😉
 
Shit I thought I banned that word. Guess I better go back and ban it again, I'm sure nobody would mind 😉
 
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think the most fascinating part of "B.D.S" is how it has become the catchall excuse for EVERY objection to Bush's policies or actions. I while admit that there are some people who have a pretty intense hatred of the President (although I disagree that he's the first President that's happened to), but that's not what we're talking about here. The "B.D.S" charge isn't reserved for the truly demented, it's leveled at every single person who dislikes Bush or his views. If you don't like his stance on social security, it's B.D.S. If you think he's wrong on Iraq, it's B.D.S. If you object to waterboarding, illegal wiretapping or secret prisons, it MUST be because of, oh let it come...B.D.S.
Click to expand...


This is where I think you're wrong. bds isn't thrown about whenever a disagreement arises on Bush's policy. it's used when someone on the left attempts to deflect the topic of conversation.

I'll give you a couple hypothetical examples of when you think bds term is used, vs when I think it is used:


When you think it is used:

Topic title: Has bush's foreign policy failed?

you: yes, bush's policy is a failure, as is bush himself
Me: bds!

the above rarely happens, and if it does, I'd accept being called out on it. I would never use the bds term in this situation, as the discussion is about Bush to begin with.

Now, here is when bds is appropriately used:

Topic: Hillary getting thousands in donations from chinese busboy

Me: if Hillary knew about this, she was wrong.
You: Not as wrong as Bush! He murdered thousands in an unjust war! TREASON!!!

Me: bds.

see the difference? in the first situation, the conversation is about bush. therefore there's no reason to assign the bds label. in the second situation, you came flying in with an accusation against bush, which lends absolutely NO credible argument to the topic and is an attempt at deflecting the conversation. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with a chinese busboy giving hillary money. hence, bds

keep in mind these are purely hypothetical situations.
Click to expand...

And if you USED the phrase that way, I don't think I'd really care. But Wikipedia articles aside, that's not what "BDS" is. I understand the impression you're trying to create, but it's a little thrown off because people DO throw it around all the time for no reason. Do a search for BDS and you'll see what I'm talking about.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Shit I thought I banned that word. Guess I better go back and ban it again, I'm sure nobody would mind 😉
Click to expand...

Only the resident blowhards would mind. Though if you get rid of that you should get rid of a lot of the stupid labels the partisans hacks throw around.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: dahunan
Are neocons realy that much different from al-qaeda?
Click to expand...

Very much so. Liberals don't support the neocons for any reason.
Click to expand...
It looks like Chicken is showing that he's suffering from LDS

 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency?nay?the very existence of George W. Bush".

It looks to me that bds, while initially a "joke" has become more prevelent among many here in America(and even some abroad). Even during the height of negativity towards Clinton, there wasn't this level of hatred. While many of use disliked his policies and actions - it wasn't a reactionary hatred for the most part(minus the fringes who always have their panties in a bunch).
Click to expand...

Odd, I thought I was the one that started BDS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top