Why do you still support Bush?

WhoodaThunk wrote:

At least Bush pulls off the commonman act ...

There is a huge difference between "pulling off" the "common man act"...and being and acting the way a fukin' moron has to be and act.

When you discover the difference....your eyes will be opened.

Um, I know what Carhartt's are. Does that make me common?

Frank Apisa wrote:

WhoodaThunk wrote:

At least Bush pulls off the commonman act ...

There is a huge difference between "pulling off" the "common man act"...and being and acting the way a fukin' moron has to be and act.

When you discover the difference....your eyes will be opened.

I see the name-calling has begun, so having answered the question in a civil manner and having posed a better one, I'll be on my merry way.

Have a nicely bitter day, Frank, and, as always, feel free to kiss my backside.

Uhh, Frank ...

"Fukin' moron" = namecalling.

Your side resorts to it all too frequently, and it does nothing to win the hearts and minds of the rest of us fukin' morons who simply voted against Democrat elitism in the past two presidential elections.

Dontcha get it?

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Uhh, Frank ...

"Fukin' moron" = namecalling.

Your side resorts to it all too frequently, and it does nothing to win the hearts and minds of the rest of us fukin' morons who simply voted against Democrat elitism in the past two presidential elections.

Dontcha get it?

There is nothing left to say about Bush.

How do you win the hearts and minds of morons in two elections?

LIE TO THEM!

1.Tell them the boogie man is coming to get them.

2.Tell them that god told you to tell them to vote for you to stop the boogie man from hurting you.

3. Show them a bunch of stuff that the boogie man is planing to do that you made up yourself.

4. Then tell them you need a bunch of money to fight the boogie man and keep it.

5. And when their fellow countrymen tell them you are lying to them tell them they either with the boogie man or they are "liberals" what ever the hell that means.

The truth is too painful for you guys. Thats what is going on.

Amigo wrote:

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Uhh, Frank ...

"Fukin' moron" = namecalling.

Your side resorts to it all too frequently, and it does nothing to win the hearts and minds of the rest of us fukin' morons who simply voted against Democrat elitism in the past two presidential elections.

Dontcha get it?

There is nothing left to say about Bush.

How do you win the hearts and minds of morons in two elections?

LIE TO THEM!

1.Tell them the boogie man is coming to get them.

2.Tell them that god told you to tell them to vote for you to stop the boogie man from hurting you.

3. Show them a bunch of stuff that the boogie man is planing to do that you made up yourself.

4. Then tell them you need a bunch of money to fight the boogie man and keep it.

5. And when their fellow countrymen tell them you are lying to them tell them they either with the boogie man or they are "liberals" what ever the hell that means.

The truth is too painful for you guys. Thats what is going on.

Gosh.
You guys are smart.
Why didn't I see this?
I must be a fukin' moron, too.
I'll vote for a Democrat next time.
Thanx.

candidone1 wrote:

I have been tediously scrolling through and (yes), reading the "Is Bush a Liar" thread.
The usual suspects have donated their typical contributions, but I wonder why some people still unconditionally support Bush.
What are some of the things he is currently doing that makes him worthy of such support?.... and under what conditions would you cease to support him further?

I have never unconditionally supported him. I think he's dead wrong to be in favor of tort reform, for instance. However, I voted for him, and support him now because he usually says things I believe. I guess you can tell me why that's wrong.

Okay, I'll add to the bloody bait of this sharkfest ...

It's not so much that I support Bush, though I did vote for him in '04 after voting for Gore in '00, it's just that the Democratic Party has become such a caricature of what it once was. When it comes time to cast that vote, apparently most Americans just couldn't bring themselves to vote for the candidate (& his wife, Endora) who had flipflopped to the top of the heap of such a stinking mess of wacked-out losers.

Mine wasn't a pro-Bush vote as much as an anti-Kerry vote.

Having said that, I think a better question might be:

With such a pathetic, good ol' boy, palm-greasing moron in the Whitehouse, why haven't the Democrats gained the slightest bit of ground with the electorate in the past six years?

Let the waters churn ...

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

Brandon, get some rest.

It was my impression that she started the thread to ask conservatives the question I answered.

1. I continue to believe that this Administration's policy decisions were appropriate to the time and circumstances they were made. That there have been unintended consequences is just a fact of life whenever decisions are made in the absence of complete certainty, and such certainty virtually never exists in politics.

There is a difference between making a mistake, and making significant, substantial and frequent mistakes....and also making efforts to correct them.

2. I believe that most of the complaints about the blood cost of the Administration's foreign and military policies are overblown, and that the actual casuality rates have been very low. The current struggle is much more akin to this nation's epic struggles than it is to the invasion of Grenada. The casualties were greater during almost any major Civil War battle in a single hour than the total in Iraq/Afghanistan. Compare the cost of Okinawa, a single campaign, to the current casualties, and again the costs are very low. Some would argue that the casualty rates should be balanced against results. I believe that life for Iraqi's and Afghans today is more promising than it was prior to our interventions in response to 9/11. The potential for democratic governments exists today where before there was nothing but brutal dictatorships. A wedge has been driven geographically between Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Many thousands of radical Islamic terrorists are no longer a threat to the United States or its allies. Prior to this Administrations military policies, I believe that the leadership of the radical Islamic movement believed that they could attack us with impunity, and that is no longer the case.

Aside from being a "war president", war is not his raison d'etre. There are many domestic issues where the ball has been dropped....
Hard.

That we have not experienced a major terrorist attack within the United States since 9/11 is, I believe, in large measure due to the policies and efforts of this administration. The enemy is "otherwise occupied". Now they must live in constant fear that we will find them out and destroy them wherever they may try to hide. The fact that Bin Ladin remains at large, is unfortunate, but his C3 links have been seriously disrupted, and his chief and best lieutenants are dead, dead, dead. With the continuation of this Administration's initiatives, I believe the United States will be harder and harder to attack. Thats a good thing, even if some among us don't object.

I think that since 9/11 was the first attack on the American territory by a foreign enemy since, what, the British?....the odds of another strike were diminished more likely by other factors other than Bush's policies.
9/11 just allowed his PNAC agenda forward.

3. Since the President is a lame duck, there is no reason not to support his policies for the remainder of his term.

Nuff said.
That is unconditional support.
I choose not to support a lame duck.

4. What effective alternative do you suggest?

I was not offering alternatives, rather a question as to why this man or this administration deserves unconditional respect and support.
You have responded quite appropriately.
Failure to support the president unconditionally is to undermine the republican party.

Uhh, Frank ...

"Fukin' moron" = namecalling.

Your side resorts to it all too frequently, and it does nothing to win the hearts and minds of the rest of us fukin' morons who simply voted against Democrat elitism in the past two presidential elections.

Dontcha get it?

Uhh, Frank ...

"Fukin' moron" = namecalling.

Your side resorts to it all too frequently, and it does nothing to win the hearts and minds of the rest of us fukin' morons who simply voted against Democrat elitism in the past two presidential elections.

Dontcha get it?

I said this before:

I don't support everything Bush has done or continues to do. I simply find him far preferable to the alternative.

Please note:No references to the Clintons or Kennedys so skip that tired refrain.

Care to answer the better question?

Why are the Democrats & their policies still so distasteful when only 29% of America supports the moronic buffoon?

Didn't think so. Bueller? Bueller?

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Uhh, Frank ...

"Fukin' moron" = namecalling.

Your side resorts to it all too frequently, and it does nothing to win the hearts and minds of the rest of us fukin' morons who simply voted against Democrat elitism in the past two presidential elections.

Dontcha get it?

Don't you???

Bush is a fukin' moron.

Frank Apisa wrote:

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Uhh, Frank ...

"Fukin' moron" = namecalling.

Your side resorts to it all too frequently, and it does nothing to win the hearts and minds of the rest of us fukin' morons who simply voted against Democrat elitism in the past two presidential elections.

Dontcha get it?

Don't you???

Bush is a fukin' moron.

Unless we are here dealing with a Bush lap dog, who, in the event of a criticism of his master, lashes out irrationally against the offender.

I think that since 9/11 was the first attack on the American territory by a foreign enemy since, what, the British?....the odds of another strike were diminished more likely by other factors other than Bush's policies.
9/11 just allowed his PNAC agenda forward.

On March 9, 1916, Villa led 1,500 (disputed, one official US Army report stated "500 to 700") Mexican raiders in a cross-border attack against Columbus, New Mexico, in response to the U.S. government's official recognition of the Carranza regime [3]. They attacked a detachment of the [13th US Cavalry], seized 100 horses and mules, burned the town, killed 10 soldiers and 8 of its residents, and took much ammunition and weaponry.