It Appears to me

I don't disagree with bush on many of his economic policies, except for the disproportianate tax cuts. I don't even disagree with him much on Iraq.

But I do strongly disagree with him on social matters.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Tarantulas wrote:
That remains to be proven. I believe in my heart that he recognizes Mr. Bush's strong leadership. He may not agree with it, but that's another discussion.

The highlighted phrase is what many of us see Bush's "leadership"and support based upon. Not evidence, not experience, not counsel, but belief. This should not be the basis upon which the leader of a nation makes his decsions.
He "believes" he is always right. He "believes" he is following god's plan. Does this truly not bother you?

In my opinion, belief is exactly the basis for making decisions. George Bush gathered a good staff together, and he believes in them and trusts them to do the right thing. He doesn't need to know how the underwater sonar transducer works or what is the composition of the red ink on a dollar bill. He just needs to have good people who know that stuff. He's the decision maker who ties everything together.

Years ago I worked for a guy who was a genius in the radiation protection field. Suddenly one day he took a leave of absence to go climb Mount Everest. The company replaced him with a manager who was just coming back from having a heart attack. This guy knew just the basics about radiation protection, but that didn't matter to the department. He didn't have to know the nuts and bolts of the operation, because he was a good leader.

IIRC, one of the first things the Bush administration did was to issue a letter to current employees saying, in effect, "If you cause any moral or legal problems, your job is history." He wanted integrity in his employees. That's another big difference between him and his predecessor. And it's also a sign of good leadership.

I don't think the President "believes he is always right." And although I'm not religious myself, I have no problem with someone who is. So the answer is no, it doesn't really bother me.

0 Replies

That's really quite sad.

0 Replies

Actually I'm very happy about it. See?

0 Replies

I don't consider Bush a conservative. I consider him a led by neocons babe in the woods. I like a number of conservatives, even when I disagree with them. Finn comes immediately to mind. I find very few things we can agree on, but it's ok.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's easy to criticize while adding nothing to the conversation, huh, Joe?

It's remarkably easy. You should try it some time. Oh, silly me, look who I'm talking to!

McGentrix wrote:

Anyone can do that. Just take a look at this post. I am being critical of your flippance towards those that would venture conservative thought.

"Flippance?" Is that a word? I think the preferred term is "flippantoiserie."

McGentrix wrote:

I can only speak for myself on this, but we can't all be lawyers or historians or whatever else you feel one needs to be to make a cogent arguement.

You don't need to be a lawyer or a historian to make a cogent argument. Of course, being one doesn't hurt.

McGentrix wrote:

I have never taken a debate class or bothered to learn all the latin phrases for what people do during these debates, I just know what bothers me and many times, on many threads, it becomes apparent that some just want to be disruptive or gain attention for themselves. I come here BECAUSE of the arguing. Hobitbob, Bi-Polar Bear, Pistoff, and more make my blood boil and make me see red until I have to go do other things for awhile, but I come back. I come back to see if perhaps I can change their mind on even one little thing. No matter how hopeless it becomes, I try.

Well, at least you didn't blame it all on Bill Clinton.

0 Replies

Hey not everything is Clinton's fault. Carter did some of it.

0 Replies

Quote:

That remains to be proven. I believe in my heart that he recognizes Mr. Bush's strong leadership. He may not agree with it, but that's another discussion.

The highlighted phrase is what many of us see Bush's "leadership"and support based upon. Not evidence, not experience, not counsel, but belief. This should not be the basis upon which the leader of a nation makes his decsions.
He "believes" he is always right. He "believes" he is following god's plan. Does this truly not bother you?

It doesn't bother me when belief is backed up with substance. I appreciate that many of you do not support some of Bush's fiscal and/or social opinions/policy; I can understand how some do not support the war in Iraq or any war at all for that matter. I respect those who hold differing opinions out of conviction. I just sigh and roll my eyes and ignore those who hold differing opinions out of irrational hate and/or prejudice.

Many of us could not really fault the previous president on policy--he didn't often get in the way of a predominently conservative Congress and we got a lot of good stuff done. But many thoughtful people didn't like Bill Clinton. Even apart from his questionable morals, he was distrusted because he didn't seem to believe in anything. He seemed to go with whatever the polls said on any given day and seemed to have convictions about almost nothing other than needing Bill Clinton to be loved and admired.

Whatever you think about George W. Bush's speaking ability, conservative tilt, etc.--he isn't anywhere near conservative enough for me but I'm not always right on this stuff either--GWB has given me no reason to believe he is not a man of conviction and principle.

Is he a saint? No. I don't require sainthood of people. But he believes what he is doing is right. I believe he will not make policy for personal advantage or gain. I believe he has the best interest of America and humankind at heart. These are some of the reasons I trust him not to veer too far off the right path.

0 Replies

Ahh, how easy it is to characterize poeple.....

I prefer opinions based on facts and policy. Not perceptions and feelings people give you.

Some see Bush and see a man of honour and character, others seem to see the Devil himself.

What I wish is that whimsical characterization were less a part of politics.

The "has conviction" vs. "has no conviction" is barely a step above "has big penis" and "has small penis". The subjective characterizations mean nothing to his job. What makes a difference is the course the nation takes, not the perceived traits of the individual.

I wish people would stick to the damn issues, and not the theatrics.

0 Replies

The problem I see with him (and many politicians, left and right) is their inability to admit a mistake and make things correct when they see that what they have done is wrong. Sticking with a principal no matter what is the sign of an ego out of control.

If you drive your car into a wall, do you keep on trying to drive through, or do you back up and try to get back on the road?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I wish people would stick to the damn issues, and not the theatrics.

Sorry Craven - I just threw in some more theatrics.....

0 Replies

And Craven, sorry to upset you. Maybe you could explain how you can be sure of facts and policy when you don't trust those who are stating them or making it?

0 Replies

Who upset me? I'm not upset at all.

Foxfyre, the verification of facts is a distraction. What I criticized is the theatrics of politics, the "my candidate is more manly" lines.

Ultimately the president's personality is only an issue if it reflects in how the country is run. And if it does so then the issues on how the country is run can be addressed instead of the characterization games.

0 Replies

Quote:

I respect those who hold differing opinions out of conviction. I just sigh and roll my eyes and ignore those who hold differing opinions out of irrational hate and/or prejudice.

Not all hate is irrational.

Can you respect those of us whose hate of Bush is rational and based on conviction?

0 Replies

ebrown writes:

Quote:

Not all hate is irrational.

Can you respect those of us whose hate of Bush is rational and based on conviction?

I respect hate directed toward those who do unconscionable and despicable things such as terrorists who deliberately target innocent women and children or use them as human shields, those who torture, rape, cheat, and/or murder hundreds of thousands of their own people (Saddam Hussein and his thugs), or those who make sport of watching people and/or animals suffer. Hate away at those and I will join you.

I cannot respect hate and unrelentless bashing of an elected official who is just doing his damndest to do his job, and I cannot respect the spinmeisters who fan the flames and foster that kind of hate for their own self serving purposes. I cannot relate to the hate and venom directed toward George W. Bush while there seems little or no anger, let alone rage, directed toward the terrorists and thugs who have attacked us and/or killed and maimed thousands here and in their own countries.

It seems to me that directing hatred toward GWB and not toward the terrorists is very skewed. And I think it is bad for the country.

Is George Bush perfect? Of course not. Has he made mistakes? Several that I know of and no doubt others that I don't know of. Is he the best man for the job at this time? I don't know but he's the one we have and it would seem the prudent thing in time of war is to get behind him and help get the job done. Should he be re-elected? That will depend on social and political preferences and will be decided in November.

I simply cannot understand how the "I hate Bush' crowd seems to be so consumed with rage against him and seem to have no passion at all where the terrorists are concerned. I just can't relate to that.

0 Replies

And Craven, I respectfully disagree that trust based on a man's character is not quite the same thing as who has the longest penis Smile

0 Replies

It's a small step above it. Characterization is fickle, subjective and innacurate. It's derived more from a man's image than a man's actions.

Bush sends "honest" and "updtanding" vibes to some and very different ones for others.

I dislike the focus on the man, the praise of him for having "character" and the criticism of him for being "stupid" for example.

I just care about what the polices chosen are and their result. With a prospective candidate I care only about what the favored policies are.

What vibes he gives or what he looks like or what he is characterized as means little to me because I think it means little to his job.

0 Replies

I was travelling between Lakeview and Branson the other day when a tire blew out. Checking my spare, I found that it too was flat. My only option was to flag down a passing motorist and get a ride to the next town. The first vehicle to stop was an old man in a van. He yelled out the window, "Need a lift?"
"Yes, I sure do," I replied. "You a Democrat or Republican?," asked the old man. "Republican," I replied. "Well, you can just go to Hell," yelled the
old man as he sped off.
Another guy stopped, rolled down the window, and asked me the same question. Again, I gave the same answer, "Republican." The driver gave
me the finger and drove off. I thought it over and decided that maybe I should change my strategy, since this area seemed to be overly political and there appeared to be few Republicans on the road that day.
The next car to stop was a red convertible
driven by a beautiful blonde. She smiled seductively
and asked if I was a Democrat or Republican. "Democrat" I shouted. "Hop in!" replied the blonde. Driving down the road, I couldn't help but stare at the gorgeous woman in the seat next to me, the wind
blowing through her hair, perfect breasts, and a short skirt that continued to ride higher and higher up her thighs.
Finally, I yelled, "Please stop the car." She immediately slammed on the brakes and as soon as the car stopped, I jumped out.
"What's the matter?" she asked.
"I can't take it anymore," I replied.
"I've only been a Democrat for five minutes and already, I want to screw somebody".

0 Replies

Quote:

I respect hate directed toward those who do unconscionable and despicable things such as terrorists who deliberately target innocent women and children or use them as human shields, those who torture, rape, cheat, and/or murder hundreds of thousands of their own people (Saddam Hussein and his thugs), or those who make sport of watching people and/or animals suffer. Hate away at those and I will join you.

What qualifies as "unconscionable and dispicable things" is subjective isn't it. Bush's policies qualify in my book.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Is George Bush perfect? Of course not. Has he made mistakes? Several that I know of and no doubt others that I don't know of.

Congratulations, Foxfyre, you've managed to answer a question that even George W. couldn't answer.

0 Replies

It Appears to me

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know