Bush's virtues

Oh, this is another "Bush sucks! No, YOU suck!" thread. I love it.

By the way, Bush sucks.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Oh, this is another "Bush sucks! No, YOU suck!" thread. I love it.

By the way, Bush sucks.

...and I was afraid of that.
I'm still clinging to hopes that, although I support many of the Bush-bashers sentiments, I'm attempting to provide a forum for Bush supporters to lay out a logical or emotional map to his charismatic, and unfortunately long-lived, political existence.
With three years left on his contract to the American people, I was hoping for a more enlightening, albeit less "typical", Bush thread that illuminated some of the qualities or policies his supporters find most endearing.

As a side-bar, what I had also hoped would emerge is less of a Bush is an infalliable God recollection of his Presidency, and have some of his supporters who have been marginalized by his brand of conservatism speak out with pro's and con's of his last four and ahalf years in office.

0 Replies

There are enough people on A2K speaking out about the con's of the Bush presidency. I see no reason to have his supporters do so.

0 Replies

You see McG, you and your ilk prefer avoidance and denial on this matter.
I requested " a more enlightening, albeit less "typical", Bush thread that illuminated some of the qualities or policies his supporters find most endearing."

"Less typical" meaning, free from the tired and predictable leftist rhetoric that I so frequently support.

I also said that I wanted to hear form "some of his supporters who have been marginalized by his brand of conservatism speak out with pro's and con's of his last four and a half years in office.

Indeed, there are enough of us pointing out the dreaded "cons" of this unfortunate political wedlock, but I was requesting information from those who in fact voted for him (a Bush supporter), support him, but are feeling marginalized.

I know that you can add to the dabate McG as a devout Bush is Godsupporter and not as a margnialized republican, so stick to your political ethos and bring a halt to your continued demnstration of your inability to contribute to a less typical Bush thread.
It really does take two to tango when bashing Bush.
Stop the dance for some constructive dialogue to take place please.
Your cooperation is appreciated.

0 Replies

Please. It's 25:1 here. It's not a tango so much as a mosh pit.

Bush ran as a compassionate conservative and that is how he has run his administration. Anyone who feels marginalized obviously did not understand what Bush stood for.

You expect me to just sit on the sidelines while yet another "Bush Sucks" thread is created. Sorry, I won't do that. I stated my opinions on this.

Why don't you take your smart a$$ remarks and direct them to your "ilk" that have contributed nothing to this thread? You asked what people liked in Bush, I responded. I think he is a principled man who stands behind his convictions.

You accuse me of being a "devout Bush is God supporter ". You can stick that where the sun doesn't shine.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Very well said. However, if I may extend on this point of yours...

"In North Korea we have the result of a naive, failed attempt on the part of the previous admin to prevent NK from acquiring a Nuke. This must play itself out diplomatically because there is no military option there without risking the deaths of millions in Seoul SK. "

To say the Clinton Admin was naive is being nice. Madam Albright recommended and Bubba agreed to GIVE the nuke technology to NK. Some naysayers will argue that NK lied to Madam Albright. Yet, one must be stupid or incompetant to believe the NK Govt.

I will add that GW is the first US president to actively look at SS reform. Every former Prez gave lip service to thsi problem, but GW is trying to get something done and he should be commended for it.
I am curious to know what nuke tech you think CLinton gave to NK? Care to elaborate? Or should I just write your statement off as an unimformed/ignorant perspective? I am betting you can't find a single nuclear technology that was given to N Korea that they could use.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml

During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship.

Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.

The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.

In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Please. It's 25:1 here. It's not a tango so much as a mosh pit.

Bush ran as a compassionate conservative and that is how he has run his administration. Anyone who feels marginalized obviously did not understand what Bush stood for.

You expect me to just sit on the sidelines while yet another "Bush Sucks" thread is created. Sorry, I won't do that. I stated my opinions on this.

Why don't you take your smart a$$ remarks and direct them to your "ilk" that have contributed nothing to this thread? You asked what people liked in Bush, I responded. I think he is a principled man who stands behind his convictions.

You accuse me of being a "devout Bush is God supporter ". You can stick that where the sun doesn't shine.

one might say "If you could just remove your head so there's room to do that" but that would merely be a good natured crime of opportunity Laughing

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Please. It's 25:1 here. It's not a tango so much as a mosh pit.

Bush ran as a compassionate conservative and that is how he has run his administration. Anyone who feels marginalized obviously did not understand what Bush stood for.

So, anyone who is marginilized isn't simply an outcasted conservative, their interpretation of Bush's policies is just wrong?
That hardly seems fair.
I know plenty of conservatives in Canada who said, had they had the opportunity, they would have cast a vote in his favor but had reservations with some of his policies.
Clearly, when Bush said "You are either with us or with the terrorists" he was making a blanket statement about his "compassionate conservatism" that you'd seemingly endorse: You must either support it all, or none at all.
Marginilazed by Bush?
It's not that you have slightly different values, morals or politics in your veins, you just don't understand.

McGentrix wrote:

You expect me to just sit on the sidelines while yet another "Bush Sucks" thread is created. Sorry, I won't do that. I stated my opinions on this.

Did you read the title of this thread McG? Or are you going to accuse me of an underhanded bait and switch.
Literacy is up, comprehension seems to be down this morning.

McGentrix wrote:

Why don't you take your smart a$$ remarks and direct them to your "ilk" that have contributed nothing to this thread? You asked what people liked in Bush, I responded. I think he is a principled man who stands behind his convictions.
You accuse me of being a "devout Bush is God supporter ". You can stick that where the sun doesn't shine.

Can you give me directions?
...sorry about accusing you of being a Bush is God supporter. You have given every indication that you are just the opposite. My niavety has overwhelmed me.

I thought I made my intent clear when I said that I didn't want this to become another typical Bush thread, so...to to my "ilk" who may have misunderstood, could we refrain from Bush bashing, unless you are objecting to misstated facts by contributing Bush supporters? I really am trying to see what the appeal is to him and his politics.
Thanks to those who have contributed.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml

During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship.

Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.

The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.

In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program.

And the nuclear tech was what? Food isn't nuclear tech. An unfinished reactor isn't nuclear tech either. Let me ask my question AGAIN.. what nuclear tech was given to N Korea that they could actually use? (The nuclear reactor is STILL not finished. Plus it is not a breeder reactor so it can't contribute to any nuke weapons.)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

There are enough people on A2K speaking out about the con's of the Bush presidency. I see no reason to have his supporters do so.

Since his supporters seem to be in such a minority, I am baffled as to how he got re-elected at all.

I find U.S. politics much more confusing than Canadian politics. Trouble is, they are both political. On the other hand, we both have leaders that have successfully deceived the people!

0 Replies

McG

Quote:

AQ, al Qaeda I presume, is as strong as ever?

Why, that is beyond ludacris! That makes me want to just point and laugh.

What was the last act of terrorism Osama committed? 9-11. What country is supporting Osama and his small band of trouble makers? None.

You are vastly over rating that poor gang of terrorists.

You have the right to defend Bush as much as you want, of course, but you don't have the right to make things up.

The fact is that across the world, AQ has participated in or is responsible for several attacks since 9/11. Most notably would be bombings in Indonesia and Madrid(forget that one?)

The fact is that all our intel has shown a rise in AQ recruits over the last few years.

The fact is that we can catch the scrubs from AQ all day long and it doesn't mean **** to Osama; the underlings are all replacable, and you know it.

The fact is that AQ has plenty of money; they had plenty of money before 9/11 and there's no reason to think they would have less now. You think they got their operating captial from the Taliban? Hardly! They don't NEED state support in order to operate; this should be clear to you by now, but apparently isn't.

The fact is that the World Terrorism Report that Condi quashed showed a three-fold rise in attacks last year.

The fact is that we call the Terrorists in Iraq 'insurgents' instead of Terrorists so we don't have to include those numbers in calculating the rise in terrorism worldwide; if we did, the numbers would have gone up tenfold last year.

The fact is that Bush has failed to catch and punish those responsible for 9/11. A historical study of AQ shows that they only launch major attacks every few years; therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to believe there isn't another attack coming.

I'd love to see you post any factual data which contradicts what I have written. I'm betting that you can't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bush's virtues

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know