Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
It's not quite right to pile on. Tico is the only one to admit to still support Bush and I'm curious why. Why he still supports him, I mean. Perhaps if we could just hold off on the character judgments he might tell us.

Why should I not support him?

Oh, I don't know. I was thinking along the lines of accumulating evidence of incompetence, corruption, the systematic dismantling of very important government agencies, incompetence, lack of restraint, incompetence, cronyism, and general bungling. As a conservative, I thought maybe by now there would be enough evidence to make you realize that he's not a very good president, and he's not very conservative.

Quote:

I'm not going to put my finger in the air and change my opinion just because the general support for the war in Iraq is waning , or because you anti-Bushies have continued to maintain he ought not be supported.

I wouldn't expect you to.

Quote:

Had the war been going better, if the insurgents/terrorists had not put up as strong of a resistance, if the support of the war remained high, would you have changed your opinion of Bush and supported him?

No. But do you not see that the way things are now is completely predictable and predicted. Do you not see our own complicity in things turning out the way they did? Do you not see how the outcome is at least partly due to obvious mismanagement and poor decision making and not bad luck and bad guys?

Quote:

The terrorists believe that America is a paper tiger that will turn tail in defeat after a few blows. We have shown otherwise thus far in this effort, but the anti-war leftists would prefer that we do exactly that.

You're right. We sure showed them. We showed them we are tough but incredibly stupid. Something tells me they may have studied Judo.

Quote:

You might be wishy-washy, but I'm not.

I've never supported this president or this war and as far as I can see my reasons have proven to be sound over time. I am willing to be proven wrong, however. That's not being wishy-washy, that's being smart.

Quote:

Americans should all want their President to succeed -- regardless of whom it is --

Yes, I want our president to succeed, which is why it's so frustrating that he seems incapable of it. At some point, you have to look down and realize that the horse you are riding is actually a donkey.

Quote:

You couldn't get over the fact that Bush was the President and ought to be supported. You wanted him to fail from the beginning of his presidency. And you delight if the news coming out of Iraq is not good. As I've said many times, I believe most leftists want the US to lose because that furthers their political views.

So you support him out of spite for the rest of us.

0 Replies

FreeDuck: Yes, I want our president to succeed, which is why it's so frustrating that he seems incapable of it. At some point, you have to look down and realize that the horse you are riding is actually a donkey.

FreeDuck, That's a very good description. Pretty soon, that donkey is going to change into a jackass.

0 Replies

Refreshing to see GWB with an enthusiastic crowd in Kosovo. An unscripted moment or two.

He seemed right at home among the thieves and pickpockets.

0 Replies

Tico Wrote:

Quote:

Why should I not support him?

Because he's an absolute moron who has pursued several failed strategies with respect to both foreign and domestic policy. Also, because he is dragging the Republican party down into the dumps. That's why you shouldn't support him - he is ensuring the Democrats will have a major majority coming into '08, that won't go away any time soon.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McT: He seemed right at home among the thieves and pickpockets.

In Albania where Bush received the biggest welcome, over 70 percent of the cars in Tirana are Mercedes, mostly stolen from Europe. There's a connection there, someplace, between the people of Tirana and Bush. Just can't seem to put my finger on it. LOL

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

- he is ensuring the Democrats will have a major majority coming into '08, that won't go away any time soon.

That's a bold statement, considering the "new congress" has so far produced virtually nothing. Hell they've pursued virtually nothing. Meanwhile; their frontrunner for the Oval Office consistently fairs worse in the polls than the Republican frontrunner. Triumphantly screaming "We're not Bush!" isn't' that great of a strategy once you realize Bush isn't running. Judging by the debates; the Left has yet to realize this.

0 Replies

Quote:

That's a bold statement, considering the "new congress" has so far produced virtually nothing. Hell they've pursued virtually nothing.

If your guy would stop vetoing bills, they would have passed more, for sure.

I think your confidence for '08 is based upon absolutely nothing at all. Polls taken at this point are mostly about name rec. and not much else... but if you look at the actual issues, there's nothing to vote for on the Republican side.

Economy? Flat at best for the average American (great for the rich tho! Big surprise there)
Iraq? Not going to get any better.
Health care? Americans trust Dems by 20% more.
Immigration? No comment necessary.
Corruption? Only going to get worse for the Republicans as investigations continue.

This isn't even the 'campaign season' yet. When I read that 2/3rds of respondants can't accurately identify Giuliani's position on abortion or gays, it tells me that his support isn't really for much more than his name and his penchant for making tough statements.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Anyone going to see "Sicko", the upcoming film about US healthcare?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Anyone going to see "Sicko", the upcoming film about US healthcare?

I'll be checking it out. I like MM's films for their entertainment value. One does have to log into a few websites to fact check his films though, sometimes he pretty flexible with the truth, usually to get a laugh. I'm not saying he's 100% wrong with his points, just slanted. I like to see both slants if possible.

0 Replies

Quote:

You fools owe the liberals for everything you have.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Don't forget to include Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Fidel, Hugo, and quite a few other liberals, Cyclops.

Your article is bilge.

0 Replies

Funny thing is that people like cyc gobble that swill up like gospel and regurgitate where he thinks some "conservative" will read it.

0 Replies

Would you like to take a point or two from Cyclops' article and discuss them? There are a few, all good.

I thought not. You'd rather just mud-sling.

0 Replies

It's a rant, sure. It also happens to be mostly true.

0 Replies

Talk about "swill up like gospel and regurgitate," some people don't recognize their own writing habits. They are good at ad hominems, tho. LOL

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Don't forget to include Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Fidel, Hugo, and quite a few other liberals, Cyclops.

Your article is bilge.

Okay, add them to the list, I don't care. It doesn't change the validity of it one bit.

As predicted by others, neither you nor anyone else will have a cogent counter-argument. I specifically challenge you to present one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Would you like to take a point or two from Cyclops' article and discuss them? There are a few, all good.

I thought not. You'd rather just mud-sling.

I think you are dead wrong on this point, McTag. I believe in this matter okie hit on the heart of the matter. Not all "liberal or progressive" (both very loosely defined) innovations are good, just as not all resistence to them is bad. The late, largely unlamented, 20th century was hugely dominated by innovations stoutly defended as innovative, progressive, and indeed as the "scientific " basis for all human history. They turned out to be great disasters, causing suffering and setbacks that dwarf all previous ones on both absolute and relative scales. Indeed we are still dealing with many of the after effects of the failed secular socialist and totalitarian ideologies to which generations were sacrificed in Europe, Asia and even in post colonial Africa.

The screed was a rather childish claim that all "good" innovation in human history was done by people somehow connected to contemporary left wing (liberal in the U.S.) political forces. Apart from the meaningless anachroniosm and the sweeping, unqualified generalities, just what were the valid points you believe merited discussion?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

McTag wrote:
Would you like to take a point or two from Cyclops' article and discuss them? There are a few, all good.

I thought not. You'd rather just mud-sling.

I think you are dead wrong on this point, McTag. I believe in this matter okie hit on the heart of the matter. Not all "liberal or progressive" (both very loosely defined) innovations are good, just as not all resistence to them is bad. The late, largely unlamented, 20th century was hugely dominated by innovations stoutly defended as innovative, progressive, and indeed as the "scientific " basis for all human history. They turned out to be great disasters, causing suffering and setbacks that dwarf all previous ones on both absolute and relative scales. Indeed we are still dealing with many of the after effects of the failed secular socialist and totalitarian ideologies to which generations were sacrificed in Europe, Asia and even in post colonial Africa.

The screed was a rather childish claim that all "good" innovation in human history was done by people somehow connected to contemporary left wing (liberal in the U.S.) political forces. Apart from the meaningless anachroniosm and the sweeping, unqualified generalities, just what were the valid points you believe merited discussion?

As the original poster, let me ask you: who were the Conservative artists, writers, and leaders who have progressed our society and Humanity as a whole?

Which Conservatives have fought for greater human rights for everyone? Have led our society in advances in morality and ethics?

It's true that Liberals don't always get it right; but Liberals and Progressive voices have gotten it right often enough to make them the dominant force of change and progress in our society.

I like the artist angle; who are the top Conservative artists?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I think the burden of proof is on you to show us, for example, that Mozart was a "liberal".

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I think the burden of proof is on you to show us, for example, that Mozart was a "liberal".

Granted, the works that I've found describing this are difficult for me to verify the accuracy of. So I concede that one of the people listed may or may not have been a liberal.

So my question stands:
As the original poster, let me ask you: who were the Conservative artists, writers, and leaders who have progressed our society and Humanity as a whole? Especially the artists.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know