Bush supporters' aftermath thread

timberlandko wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I suppose you are right that we won't agree. But it always comes down to a winner-loser/right-wrong thing for you doesn't it. A pitty really, because there's so much more to it.

I don't think its a winner/loser thing; I think its a right/wrong thing, and I think thats the way The Electorate sees it too, which is the point I make. Its not about who won or who lost, its about why The Democrats have been losing. I'd really prefer to see a real two-party, check-and-balance, give-and-take government. Failing that, I'll settle for Republican control as opposed to what I see to be the dangerous, radical insanity of the current Democratic Party leadership.

Was there ever any Democratic administration you supported?

0 Replies

I wasn't altogether displeased with FDR, though some of his policies bother helloutta me. I think much of the blame for the depth and length of The Great Depression in the US can be laid at his feet, I think his coddling of the isolationists and appeaseniks emboldened and even enabled the Axis Partners, his sellout to the insurance industry is the proximate cause of today's Social Security mess, and it was his misestimation of Stalin that set up the conditions for The Cold War. Truman pretty much was OK, and apart from abandoning Cuba (think Bay of Pigs), Kennedy wasn't all that bad. Johnson's civil rights stance was a gem in the nation's crown, though his shortsightedness and his administration's half-measure war policy set up what became the debacle of Vietnam. Carter was a wonderful man, sincere, honest, trustworthy, but unfortunately a man exemplifying the penultimate of The Peter Principal. Clinton was an all-around embarrassment, and did severe damge both to the Office of President and to The National Interest, to say nothing of the devastation his foriegn policy has visited on the planet. But then, thasts just what I think

One thing I will give the Democrats - they were right when they said voting for Goldwater would mean war in Vietnam within a year. I voted for Goldwater, and The Democrats turned out to have been right about war in Vietnam within the year.

When it comes to recent Republicans, I think Eisenhower was among the all-time greatest of American Presidents, as was Reagan. Nixon I never liked, trusted, or even much agreed with, and Ford was more or less the Republican equivmalent of Carter. Both Bushes will be remebered as greats, Bush 43 the greater of the two. And again, thats just what I think.

I don't expect you to agree with my rtankings, and I don't expect there's an argument you can make that would cause me to reconsider my rankings. And none of that in any way lessens my conviction it'd be great to get together with you for chat and beverages in comfortable surroundings. It ain't all politics. It ain't even all politics and religion.

0 Replies

Lack of Bush Eloquence Imperils Hurricane Victims

by Scott Ott
(2005-09-01) -- Fears increased today among hundreds of thousands of refugees from the hurricane-ravaged gulf coast as they faced a Labor Day weekend with little hope of an eloquent speech from President George Bush.

As today's New York Times editorial indicated, the president "gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom".

Instead, the president devoted his first major post-Katrina address to laying out what the federal government is actually doing to help with disaster recovery.

One New Orleans man, currently living in the 'Plaza End Zone' section of the Superdome as he awaits news of his missing family members, said, "I can survive for some time with little water, no food and highly unsanitary conditions...but if I don't hear some poetic words of comfort and stirring verbal imagery from the president pretty soon, I'm a goner."

A White House spokesman said additional speech writers have been flown in to accelerate completion of "a magnificent, almost-Clintonesque display of rhetorical compassion." However, it could take up to a week of pronunciation rehearsal before the president is ready to deliver the speech to the nation.

0 Replies

This guy's hilarious.

0 Replies

"Pronunciation rehearsal" !

Smile

0 Replies

I am so tired of you whiney liberals blaming everything on Bush. He's only been in power for five years, you can't expect him to correct all of Clinton's screwups in such a short time. If you look at Bushes record with everything he as done, you have to accept the brilliance he has shown with his decisions. Clinton has caused all these problems, and it's going to take decades to correct everything. Quit crying for heavens sake.

0 Replies

Welcome to A2K, LM.

0 Replies

Snood writes

Quote:

Was there ever any Democratic administration you supported?

I know this was directed at Timber but it made me remember. I was a card-carrying, politically active Democrat up to the Carter adminstration. I was terribly disappointed in Carter but didn't really start paying close attention to party philosophy until Reagan. At that time I made my choice and have been on the conservative side--not necessarily the GOP side--ever since.

There are some Democrats out there I admire and appreciate very much and think they would do the country proud. Unfortunately the Democrats aren't giving them much exposure, aren't appointing them head of important committees, and aren't nominating them for president. So long as the Democrat leadership remains what it is, I think they will continue to have trouble gaining credibility with any who have good political savvy and a rational approach to government, and they will keep losing important elections.

0 Replies

Thank you Ticomaya. You're my second welcome. I'm running hot tonight.

0 Replies

Remember that the one's who welcome you are probably the good guys. :wink:

(Edited to remove a reference to LM being a "moderate" poster. He's obviously a raving liberal.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps you could show me where I even criticized Mr. Dean in this series of posts, much less attacked?

2) In answer to JW, I found that Howie is a member of the United Church of Christ (UCC). And yes they are absolutely the most liberal of all the mainstream Protestant denominations. (The Unitarians might be more liberal but it would be a stretch to call them Christian.)

Lash started off with a poll showing that that the Democrats, which is the more liberal party, is seen as being "anti-religion".

Just Wonders followed up with an observation that the Democrat in charge of outreach to the churches was Howard Dean. Her tone made it clear she regarded it as a laughble choice.

You followed up with an observation that Dean was a Congregationalist. If you had left it at that, fine. But then, since the subject being discussed by Lash, JW and yourself was liberals being regarded as "anti-religion", your following statement can only be regarded as dig at both Dean and his church:

Quote:

He's [Dean's] a member of the United Church of Christ aka 'Congregationalist". That makes him a member of the most no holds barred most liberal of all liberal protestant denominations.

If that sentence was not intended to add fuel to the liberals vs religion theme that was being discussed, why was it added at all? Certainly you are not going to say the sentence had no purpose, you just threw it in there? and the expression "no holds barred most" is frequently used to describe the state of being extreme. To call something "no holds barred most liberal" is, if anything, a step farther than calling it "outrageously liberal".

It's strange. It used to be if someone went to church, which most people did, it was regarded as a positive thing. There might have been a few Protestant holouts left who did not like Catholics, and vice versa, but generally attendance at a church-any church-was considered for the good.

Now with the politicizaton of religion, there is much criticism among members of churches about political stances. While the Baptists and Catholics have chosen to inject themselves into the political fray in a big way, I was hoping that the rest of them would remain aloof from it. Guess not.

0 Replies

Tico, in response the new kid, LM, wrote:

Remember that the one's who welcome you are probably the good guys. :wink:

Guess that lets me out - Welcome anyhow, LM. If you think you're running hot now, just hang on - I imagine you've barely begun to feel the heat some of our members can generate. One thing you can count on here is friction - dynamic friction.

0 Replies

I didn't think up the poll. I reported it.

71% of the people in this country view the Democrats as anti-religion.

Deal with it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You don't see a double standard that George Bush has been condemned repeatedly for expressing his religious faith and here you are defending Howard Dean for doing the same, even including a statement that he based a policy decision on it? Can you cite an example where George Bush specifically stated he based a policy decision on his faith?

The policy Dean decided was civil unions between homosexuals.

If the issue was being discussed without reference to religion, then I would say that his remark that he based his decision partly on religion might seem out of place, (remember, he made it clear that main reason was the sceintific evidence which showed homosexuality to be based on biology).

However, that simply was not the case, was it? The Religious Right made sure of that. They trumpeted the religious angle on this up and down. In this context, Dean's comment amounted to little more than a word for the other side. The Religious Right made sure the subject of religion was front and center on this issue.

You might be correct about Bush never having outright said that he ever based a decision on religious beliefs. But he has so completely aligned himself politically with the Religious Right, embraced their leaders and gatherings, that such a declaration is beside the point.

Take stem cell research. I don't think there are any major spokesmen who oppolse that who are not part of some religous movement. On the message boards, nearly all who oppose it make clear their strong religious affiliations. What did Bush do? He made a compromise, of sorts, but one which strongly leans to the religous side.

Faith based charities receiveing federal funding, all the rest. What part of Bush's social agenda doesn't the religious right embrace, or at least find preferable to the alternatives?

I really don't see the significance of the fact that Bush might not have claimed that any particular decision was based on religion. Almost his entire agenda is endorsed by the religious right. And I think the civil unions issue was laden with religion long before Howard Dean made his comment.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Tico, in response the new kid, LM, wrote:
Remember that the one's who welcome you are probably the good guys. :wink:

Guess that lets me out - Welcome anyhow, LM. If you think you're running hot now, just hang on - I imagine you've barely begun to feel the heat some of our members can generate. One thing you can count on here is friction - dynamic friction.

Running Hot was meant in relation to my welcomes, so Thank you very much for yours!

So far it seems to me that a lot of thinking is done with the heart here, not the brain.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I didn't think up the poll. I reported it.

Did I ever say you made it up?

I merely pointed out that it served to kick off a Democrat or liberals vs religion discussion among yourself, JW, and Foxfyre. And that is the context in which I interpreted Foxfyre's comment.

Although it was several pages ago, Foxfyre asked for an explanation, I think we get along pretty well despite being on opposite sides, so I obliged.

What she thinks of the explanaton might well be another matter.

0 Replies

LM wrote:

... So far it seems to me that a lot of thinking is done with the heart here, not the brain.

You pick up on things pretty quick, seems like. I figure you'll do fine here. "Illigitimi non carborundum est", as they say. :wink:

0 Replies

LM writes

Quote:

So far it seems to me that a lot of thinking is done with the heart here, not the brain.

That's putting it charitably. Generally I think you have to have a very good bullshit detector to identify all the de ja moo. Welcome to the A2K though and wade on in. A bullet proof vest isn't mandatory but comes in handy now and then.

To KW:
I'm not going to continue this most recent exchange with you because you're all over the map and you keep making it all about the messenger even if you have to embroidery, elaborate, or distort the message to do it. If you want to try a discussion that is not a circular argument, I'll be happy to participate.

0 Replies

Thank you Foxfyre. I already have gone out to the garage and picked up a shovel.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I see the liberals are already blaming Bush for the effects of the Hurricane. Any thoughts as to why the levees weren't improved pre-9/11 under Clinton's watch?

And does the Louisiana State Government have any roll in fixing their own problem? Nah, just Bush.

One month ago-

LA National Guard Wants Equipment to Come Back From Iraq

http://abc26.trb.com/news/natguard08012005,0,4504131.story?coll=wgno-news-1

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know