Why do you still support Bush?

mysteryman wrote:

I have thought about this question,and I am going to try to answer it.
Of course,I know the usual suspects will immediately attack my answer,but thats ok.

Bush has made many mistakes,and done many things I disagree with.
Things like his stance on gay marriage.
I think he is wrong.

His stance on illegal immigrants.
I think he is wrong and we should get tougher.

I dont like the fact that he hasnt cut spending like he said.
This is my biggest problem with him.
His admin is spending money like there is no tomorrow.

There are to many people in DC who's only job is to walk around and tell each other how important they are.
I thought Bush was gonna cut the size of govt and make those people get real jobs.He didnt.

There are other things,but this will do for now.

But even with all that,I still support him.

Part of that is because there is no viable alternative right now.
I have said on here what Dem I would support if he runs.

I support Bush because even though he isnt perfect,and even though he makes mistakes,he is doing what he thinks is right.
I will ALWAYS support a person that does that.
Bush pushed tax cuts through,and that helped my wallet.
He has many of the same values that I do,and many of the same beliefs that I do.

Yes,I know he has made some mistakes,but as long as he is doing what he thinks is right,I will support that.
That goes for ANY political figure,or any person at all.

I;m not sure if I am regarded as one of the "usual suspects", but I will try not to say anything stupid.
I will let you speak to this once more:

mysteryman wrote:

Bush has made many mistakes,and done many things I disagree with

mysteryman wrote:

.... on gay marriage.
I think he is wrong.

mysteryman wrote:

His stance on illegal immigrants.
I think he is wrong

mysteryman wrote:

I dont like the fact that he hasnt cut spending like he said.
This is my biggest problem with him.
His admin is spending money like there is no tomorrow

mysterman wrote:

There are to many people in DC who's only job is to walk around and tell each other how important they are.
I thought Bush was gonna cut the size of govt and make those people get real jobs.He didnt

mysteryman wrote:

He has many of the same values that I do,and many of the same beliefs that I do.

Seems you value a tougher stance on immigration, have a different stance on gay marriage, on spending your tax dollars, on the size of government, and on "yes men" in DC.
These are all in opposition to the Bush administration's initiatives or actions, and in direct conflict with the contention that he has in fact put more money in your pocket. Spending is out of hand at your expense, despite the fact that you are currently experiencing short term financial gains through his tax cuts.
How is it that simply in virtue of doing what he thinks is right, he garners your support? Finding his policies objectionable or questionable should be independent of the "viable alternative".

I'm sure Hussein, bin Laden, and Zarqawi all act in a manner consistent with what they think is right.
Could you please qualify this statement:

mysteryman wrote:

Yes,I know he has made some mistakes,but as long as he is doing what he thinks is right,I will support that.
That goes for ANY political figure,or any person at all

Perhaps I shall modify it:

mysteryman wrote:

Yes,I know Saddam Hussein has made some mistakes,but as long as he is doing what he thinks is right,I will support that. Because I support any political figure,or any person at all, so long as they are doing what they think is right.

0 Replies

Seems odd to have a thread asking conservatives why they still support Bush, if they still do -- and then to tear into them, comparing them to Hitlerites and whatnot, when they actually come in to answer the question. <shrugs>

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Seems odd to have a thread asking conservatives why they still support Bush, if they still do -- and then to tear into them, comparing them to Hitlerites and whatnot, when they actually come in to answer the question. <shrugs>

This has been my beef with your initial question and slice & dice responses from the get-go, Candidone, but you threw a little tantrum and announced you would ignore me henceforth.

I know you're there because I can hear you snorting behind that curtain.

Care to address (AKA "deny") Nimh's observation?

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

... I'm sure Hussein, bin Laden, and Zarqawi all act (sic) in a manner consistent with what they think is right....

And ... shouldn't you be using the past tense of "act" with Mr. Hussein & Mr. Zarqawi? A minor point but I know you value your intellectual integrity ... :wink:

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
... I'm sure Hussein, bin Laden, and Zarqawi all act (sic) in a manner consistent with what they think is right....

And ... shouldn't you be using the past tense of "act" with Mr. Hussein & Mr. Zarqawi? A minor point but I know you value your intellectual integrity ... :wink:

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Hawwwwww!!!!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Seems odd to have a thread asking conservatives why they still support Bush, if they still do -- and then to tear into them, comparing them to Hitlerites and whatnot, when they actually come in to answer the question. <shrugs>

I was in no way tearing into MM.
I was simply asking him to qualify some glaring contradictions in his justification for support. That is quite germane to the discussion.
Do you Nimh, not find it worthwhile to ask why (if one states that they share similar values with the President) they'd support him when his initiatives and/or policies contradict the values they have just espoused.
Asherman and McGentrix have both responded to the question in a very reasonable and sensible manner.
MM, however, confused me and I would hope that he would illucidate what I may have misinterpreted.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Seems odd to have a thread asking conservatives why they still support Bush, if they still do -- and then to tear into them, comparing them to Hitlerites and whatnot, when they actually come in to answer the question. <shrugs>

Bit of a cry-baby...aren't you????

Mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

I support Bush because even though he isnt perfect,and even though he makes mistakes,he is doing what he thinks is right.
I will ALWAYS support a person that does that.

I noted that Hitler would have loved him for that.

Someone else noted that Saddam Hussein would love him also.

It was a stupid thing to say...and the so-called attack comments were earned.

0 Replies

Well, I will defend a portion of Nimh's post...
It's perfectly legitimate to question the motive of this thread, but I think the interpretation offered by Whooda is misguided.
I am trying to understand what it is that keeps a slim margin of people clinging to support the Bush administration.
I read more of the posts by the right-leaning members on a2k than the left leaning ones because I'm trying to understand their perspective.

I think it's perfectly fair to question one's loyalty when it is, in it's entirety, contradiction laden.
It is no "trap" to ask for clarification when someone contradicts themselves or is completely inconsistent in their statements.

0 Replies

Of course any tyrant or despot would love to have unconditional support from someone like mysteryman....but I gather he did not mean what he said.
I have asked that he qualify his statements and correct my interpretation of them if they were incorrect.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Of course any tyrant or despot would love to have unconditional support from someone like mysteryman....but I gather he did not mean what he said.
I have asked that he qualify his statements and correct my interpretation of them if they were incorrect.

I will try to clarify what I meant.

I do not unconditionally support anyone.
I dont "unconditionally" support Bush,and I have listed some of the reasons why.

The comments made that Hitler or Saddam would have loved me are stupid,meaningless posts made by people that have the brains of rocks,and read what they want to read,instead of what was written.

I support him when his actions deserve support.
I dont support him when his actions dont warrant it.

I fail to see how that is any different then those on the left that support their candidates.

0 Replies

Mr. Candidone is, I am afraid, most inaccurate.

First of all, He indicates that President Bush is supported by a "slim margin"of people.

The last real show of support( unless you include the unofficial and mostly distorted polls) was in 2004--That was 17 months ago--the slim margin that Mr. Candidone refers to was 62,040,610 to John Kerry's 59,028,111.

I don't think anyone would call that a slim margin.

0 Replies

Why do I continue to support Bush?

Why not?

Here is what President Bush and his policies have done for ME!

l. Cut my taxes- considerably

2. Increased my personal holdings--My 401K is healthier than ever

3. Appointed two wonderful Justices to the Supreme Court. Now, Mr. Candidone may not know this, but I do. Those appointments will reverberate long after President Bush has left office. They are appointments of two Justices who, I believe, will make judicial decisions which are good for the USA.

4. Stayed adamant in the struggle of the world( more about this in my next post) against the Islamo-fascist fanatic killers. Now that AlZakawi is dead and the Iraqi Assembly has appointed a Shiite to head the Ministry of the Interior and a Sunni to head the Defense Ministry, we may be seeing the beginning of the end for the insurgency.

Those are my main reasons--There are others which are not as important.

But, Something needs to be added---

I voted for President Bush instead of Vice President Gore because I felt that Gore would continue the disasterous eight year term of President Clinton--Not only was I mortified that an American President would disgrace the USA in the eyes of the world by his adolescent behavior with a young intern in his employ, I was also disgusted by what he had done in his eight years--

Not very much--

a. Presented a Socialistic plan for Health Care, which, fortunately foundered.

b. Signed NAFTA

c. Declared Most Favored Nation Status for CHina

d. Put in place a sweeping welfare reform.

0 Replies

Mr. Candidone may be among the left wingers who fulminated about President Bush's dictatorial seizure of powers in doing wire taps on phone calls out of the country to known members and associates of AlQueda.

He must be aware, of course, of the fine job done by the Canadian authorities when the terror planners in Ontario, Canada were apprehended because of the work of the Canadian domestic intelligence agency--CSIS.

Indeed, according to the editorial in the Chicago Tribune-June 8, 2006-the Canadian Authorities reportedly had been tracking the group through e-mail (gasp), Internet Chat Rooms( horrors) and telephone conversations( incredible intrusions).

The Islamo-Fascist fanatic would be killers plotted to use three tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer IN A SERIES OF EXPLOSIVE ATTACKS ON THE PARLIAMENT IN OTTAWA AND ON OTHER HIGH PROFILE TARGETS.

The Tribune Editorial continues:

"How close were the attacks? quote- Mike McDonnell.deputy commissioner for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police--"It came to a point where our concern for the safety and security of the public far outweighed our appetite for collecting evidence"

It is comforting that the Canadian government does not have the same kind of politicians we have on the Democratic side. I am sure that Dick Turban, Democrat Senator in Illinois and the next in line to Senator Reid, would have made some kind of strictly partisan attack( aiming at only political advantage at the polls in November) by saying: A Dictatorial intrusion on the rights of the American people. Why is the Bush administration listening on Grandmother's phone calls.

Or, the charming and ever poised Nancy Pelosi, who would doubtedless declare her shock at the idea of an agency which was doing things in "secret"

As the Tribune Article concludes----"IMAGINE THE DESTRUCTION IF A SERIES OF BLASTS OCCURRED TODAY, IMAGINE THE PUBLIC MOURNING AND RECRIMINATIONS"

Yes, I can imagine that Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Lahey, Biden, Kennedy, and Barney Frank would all cry out simultaneously-

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO PROTECT US-----and, as hypocrites, they would never mention that they have done everything they could to block the Bush Administration from gathering the information needed to prevent such a horror from occurring!

The Canadians are to be commended. They put the well being of the country before political considerations!

0 Replies

Mr/Ms. Bernardr wrote in part:

Quote:

b. Signed NAFTA

c. Declared Most Favored Nation Status for CHina

d. Put in place a sweeping welfare reform.

All three were Republican initiatitives, still Mr/Ms BernardR gives no credit to Clinton, apparently because, unlike the fattening of his 401k and the thinning of his tax bill, he felt no personal gain from these. If that isn't adolescent behavior I don't know what is.

Joe(yes, go ahead, sell your freedom for some safety. Yes, go ahead)Nation

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Why do I continue to support Bush?

Why not?

Here is what President Bush and his policies have done for ME!

l. Cut my taxes- considerably

2. Increased my personal holdings--My 401K is healthier than ever

3. Appointed two wonderful Justices to the Supreme Court. Now, Mr. Candidone may not know this, but I do. Those appointments will reverberate long after President Bush has left office. They are appointments of two Justices who, I believe, will make judicial decisions which are good for the USA.

4. Stayed adamant in the struggle of the world( more about this in my next post) against the Islamo-fascist fanatic killers. Now that AlZakawi is dead and the Iraqi Assembly has appointed a Shiite to head the Ministry of the Interior and a Sunni to head the Defense Ministry, we may be seeing the beginning of the end for the insurgency.

Those are my main reasons--There are others which are not as important.

But, Something needs to be added---

I voted for President Bush instead of Vice President Gore because I felt that Gore would continue the disasterous eight year term of President Clinton--Not only was I mortified that an American President would disgrace the USA in the eyes of the world by his adolescent behavior with a young intern in his employ, I was also disgusted by what he had done in his eight years--

Not very much--

a. Presented a Socialistic plan for Health Care, which, fortunately foundered.

b. Signed NAFTA

c. Declared Most Favored Nation Status for CHina

d. Put in place a sweeping welfare reform.

"Men such as they are, very naturally seek money or power; and power because it is as good as money....and why not? For they aspire to the highest, and this, in their sleep-walking, they dream is highest. Wake them, and they shall quit the false good and leap to the true...This revolution is to be wrought by the gradual domestication of the world for splender, for extent, is the upbuilding of a man"

-Emerson

0 Replies

Of course, they were Republican Initiatives, but President Clinton did not have to sign them. He did sign them. He could have vetoed them. He did not. Those bills comprise the bulk of Mr. Clinton's initiatives in office.

I am very much afraid that you are unaware that the MFN status for China and NAFTA, were good for everyone's 401K.

I really don't know what you refer to, Mr. Joe Nation, when you speak about selling one's freedom for safety. Could you be more specific?

You noted the Canadian response to the Islamo-Fascist fanatics. They used wire-taps to get the evidence they needed. Now, it is possible to declare that the Canadians sold their "freedom" for safety, but I don't think too many Canadians would agree with you, sir!!

You may have heard that -"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" You may also be aware, Mr. Joe Nation that our preamble to the Constitution- The Declaration of Independence states:

"That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I do not need to point out to you that the 3,000 of our fellow citizens killed in the WTC do not have either liberty or the pursuit of happiness, They are Dead. In order to have liberty and pursue happiness, you must live. The Islamo fascist fanatic murderers want to kill us all or have you forgotten the WTC, London, and Madrid to start with!!

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
Of course any tyrant or despot would love to have unconditional support from someone like mysteryman....but I gather he did not mean what he said.
I have asked that he qualify his statements and correct my interpretation of them if they were incorrect.

I will try to clarify what I meant.

I do not unconditionally support anyone.
I dont "unconditionally" support Bush,and I have listed some of the reasons why.

The comments made that Hitler or Saddam would have loved me are stupid,meaningless posts made by people that have the brains of rocks,and read what they want to read,instead of what was written..

The comment you made was specific...and opened you up to the comments made in return.

If anyone here has "the brains of rocks"...it is you.

If you had a tiny bit of self-respect, you would have acknowledged your error in posting the comment you posted. But obviously, you don't.

You are good for laughs, though...and I always appreciate that.

0 Replies

And Joe Nation, sir, I would respectfully suggest that you watch the Media's reactions to the Canadian swap of "liberty" for "security". I think you would see that most people realize that liberty without security is no liberty at all!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

And Joe Nation, sir, I would respectfully suggest that you watch the Media's reactions to the Canadian swap of "liberty" for "security". I think you would see that most people realize that liberty without security is no liberty at all!

Poor frightened thing, there, there now, missy, t'will be alright soon enough.

Yes, I should "watch the Media's reactions", I should, it seems an easy way to form opinions. Yes. hmmmm.

As to most people realizing that liberty without security is no liberty at all I give you Mr. Ben Franklin :

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

Joe(yes. go ahead and cut up the Constitution into some kind of doily we can wear on our heads at our execution.)Nation

0 Replies

I have read Mr. Franklin's aphorism several times. I do not agree with his aphorism since in his day, there were no Nuclear Bombs and Chemical and Biological Warfare were, if not totally unknown, of such a level that they were not deadly to millions of people.

I do hope that you will write to the Canadian Mounted Police for violating the rights of their citizens by listening on phone conversations.

How shocking!

0 Replies

Why do you still support Bush?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know