A simple question for Bush supporters

[Justice 0]

People seldom appreciate greatness in its own time.

                        -=Mike

Whether it was his fault or not, the war in Iraq was based on misinformation given to him.

 

At best it's one of history's biggest "errors."

 

EDIT: Main point is an error of this magnitutde disqualifies him from greatness immediately.

It's an error right now...

 

 

If it turns out that those WMDs ended up in Syria, it won't be an error anymore because Saddam moved them there right before the war.

Agreed. To call it a mistake now is an even bigger mistake. There is a long-term upside to Iraq, and it isn't nearly as bad in the short-term as so many people have tried to make it out to be.

[Guest GreatOne]

Let's see if I can explain the hate for Bush:

 

--Whoever mentioned 'doing stuff' (Mike?) hit it right on the head. I mean fuck have we become such a country of, well Frenchmen--big talk, but act? NO, WE NEVER MEANT THAT!!!!!!!!!! I'm venturing that most of the Bush-haters take that approach.

 

--2000, Gore choked. Get over it. Blame the DNC for, as Leslie Nielsen might say, not providing a world where a Democrat would be worth voting for--proving that they returned to normal after the Clinton miracle.

 

--SEVEN MINUTES OF DOOM~! Of course it's not like everyone else in the country (except for the victims) was frozen and at a loss what to do either--which is highly debatable that Bush was BTW, no sir.

 

--'The trend', and thank MTV for their stupid Rock The Vote campaign in '92 (which is conveniently the year MTV stopped being MTV). 12 years later all these freaking kiddies are running around with Kerry/Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, etc and they have NO FUCKING CLUE what 'JFK' stands for (of course there's a segment of us 'righties' who don't--or just can't keep pace with it--but that's another thread entirely).

 

Hell I have no problem with anyone voting for Nader, not that I believe him to be any great shakes but he's got two positives. One, people know where HE stands and two, those that are are actually voting FOR him. Yeah 'voting for Nader is voting for Bush', so what exactly is voting for Kerry which is mostly voting against Bush (when everyone who votes that way really wants Hillary in '08 anyway)?

 

Then again, can't say I won't be looking forward to the '08 Hillary/Kerry primaries--for reasons of hilarity of course

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And since when, in our recent past, have the First Children been "off-target" to anyone?  I don't care which President is in office, if his children get arrested for flagrantly breaking the law, that is a legitimate news story.

I'll disagree and say that honestly it should only make the kind of Police Blotter headlines that appear when any other teenager is arrested for the same thing. However, those kinds of standards disappeared long ago, and I'd say the American press' treatment of Bush's daughters is similar to any other nation that offers a free media. Prince William is practically followed around by a legion of reporters, and that story about him trying marijuana made headlines that, IMHO, made far larger headlines than it really deserved, but that's the situation of our society today.

 

That said, partisan media generally tries to keep the family off-limits unless they're asking for it. Limbaugh later apologized to the Clintons for the Chelsea crack, although at first he flustered and came up with bullshit that he didn't know the picture appeared behind him (it was his late-night TV show.) Most Air America programs (including Al Franken, considered the world's biggest character assassin by Bill O'Reilly) keep the Bush family off-limits and chastize callers who make fun of them*. However, there is sometimes a setting where criticizing a family member is warranted, like when Laura started mouthing off like she was some sort of expert in stem-cell research.

 

 

* I do admit to taking a guilty pleasure from one caller though, who when quizzed about whether the "our hamster didn't make it" line from the twins at the convention was a lie or a truth, replied with "Well, I'm gonna guess that was true because that hamster would die if you blew beer breath on it." Franken got on his case about it.

[Jingus 0]

--Whoever mentioned 'doing stuff' (Mike?) hit it right on the head. I mean fuck have we become such a country of, well Frenchmen--big talk, but act? NO, WE NEVER MEANT THAT!!!!!!!!!! I'm venturing that most of the Bush-haters take that approach.

Uh, what part of that "explains" why anyone would dislike Bush? Because he does stuff? I'd say 100% of American voters would agree that any President needs to do stuff.

 

--2000, Gore choked. Get over it. Blame the DNC for, as Leslie Nielsen might say, not providing a world where a Democrat would be worth voting for--proving that they returned to normal after the Clinton miracle.

 

I wasn't aware that getting about the same number of popular votes as the other guy constituted "choking". Gore hardly pulled a Carter.

 

--SEVEN MINUTES OF DOOM~! Of course it's not like everyone else in the country (except for the victims) was frozen and at a loss what to do either--which is highly debatable that Bush was BTW, no sir.

 

"highly debatable"? Bush froze, plain and simple. If you'd said "understandable" or even "forgiveable" I would agree, but "debatable" is hardly the word for seven minutes that were very well accounted for. (And I don't think anyone except Michael Moore would actually hate Bush for that.)

 

--'The trend', and thank MTV for their stupid Rock The Vote campaign in '92 (which is conveniently the year MTV stopped being MTV). 12 years later all these freaking kiddies are running around with Kerry/Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, etc and they have NO FUCKING CLUE what 'JFK' stands for (of course there's a segment of us 'righties' who don't--or just can't keep pace with it--but that's another thread entirely).

 

...I'm still trying to figure out what your point was here. You're mad that MTV signed up a bunch of young adults to vote who probably wouldn't have otherwise voted? Or are you mad that the Kerry campaign has a bunch of young volunteers? Or maybe you're mad that nobody remembers who John Fitzgerald Kennedy is, apparently some of them "just can't keep pace with it", whatever "it" is.

 

Hell I have no problem with anyone voting for Nader, not that I believe him to be any great shakes but he's got two positives. One, people know where HE stands and two, those that are are actually voting FOR him. Yeah 'voting for Nader is voting for Bush', so what exactly is voting for Kerry which is mostly voting against Bush (when everyone who votes that way really wants Hillary in '08 anyway)?

 

If I had to choose between voting only for Kerry or Bush, I gotta admit, I'd probably go with Kerry. (In case you're wondering, I did vote for Nader in 2000, but then again I was dead certain that Bush was going to win my state. And past a few of his ecological policies and legalizing marijuana, no, I don't]/i\ know where he stood on most issues.) But no, I most definitely don't want Hillary in the White House, EVER. (Although it would almost-ALMOST-be worth it just to have a President who isn't a rich white christian male for once.) Personally, I'd go with President Colin Powell, but that's just me. Oops; did I confuse you by actually, y'know, THINKING instead of blindly following one or another party's line?

 

Then again, can't say I won't be looking forward to the '08 Hillary/Kerry primaries--for reasons of hilarity of course

 

Hillary/Kerry? You mean that Kerry would try to run for Vice President after failing his Presidential bid, in your prediction here? Or that he and Hillary would somehow end up running against each other? Either way, I'd say it's fairly improbable.

[NoCalMike 0]

And since when, in our recent past, have the First Children been "off-target" to anyone?  I don't care which President is in office, if his children get arrested for flagrantly breaking the law, that is a legitimate news story.

I'll disagree and say that honestly it should only make the kind of Police Blotter headlines that appear when any other teenager is arrested for the same thing. However, those kinds of standards disappeared long ago, and I'd say the American press' treatment of Bush's daughters is similar to any other nation that offers a free media. Prince William is practically followed around by a legion of reporters, and that story about him trying marijuana made headlines that, IMHO, made far larger headlines than it really deserved, but that's the situation of our society today.

 

That said, partisan media generally tries to keep the family off-limits unless they're asking for it. Limbaugh later apologized to the Clintons for the Chelsea crack, although at first he flustered and came up with bullshit that he didn't know the picture appeared behind him (it was his late-night TV show.) Most Air America programs (including Al Franken, considered the world's biggest character assassin by Bill O'Reilly) keep the Bush family off-limits and chastize callers who make fun of them*. However, there is sometimes a setting where criticizing a family member is warranted, like when Laura started mouthing off like she was some sort of expert in stem-cell research.

 

 

* I do admit to taking a guilty pleasure from one caller though, who when quizzed about whether the "our hamster didn't make it" line from the twins at the convention was a lie or a truth, replied with "Well, I'm gonna guess that was true because that hamster would die if you blew beer breath on it." Franken got on his case about it.

Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed her boyfriend.......

 

Have a nice day

[Jingus 0]

Holy shit, are you serious?! When did this happen?

[NoCalMike 0]

Holy shit, are you serious?!  When did this happen?

It is 100% true, she was very young. I think maybe 19. You can find the story on any search engine. I mean, don't get me wrong, this shouldn't have any baring on who you vote for as President or anything, but I am kind of drunk and when Jobber brought up Laura Bush's IGNORANCE on stem cell research it reminded me of how lame her opinion on it was...so I decided to drop the "laura bush killed her bf" blast.....but yes, it is true.

 

Here is a site that kind of had fun with the story and all......well umm....yeah here ya go.....

 

ChildButcher

[redbaron29 0]

Simply put I think the reason people hate Bush so much is they are simply told "facts" that are not true. Then they fail to check the proper sources to see if they are true. Instead they accept the information like it came from Jesus Christ himself.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Holy shit, are you serious?!  When did this happen?

It is 100% true, she was very young. I think maybe 19. You can find the story on any search engine. I mean, don't get me wrong, this shouldn't have any baring on who you vote for as President or anything, but I am kind of drunk and when Jobber brought up Laura Bush's IGNORANCE on stem cell research it reminded me of how lame her opinion on it was...so I decided to drop the "laura bush killed her bf" blast.....but yes, it is true.

 

Here is a site that kind of had fun with the story and all......well umm....yeah here ya go.....

 

ChildButcher

NoCalMike, Laura Bush should be able to run over as many boyfriends as she wants!

 

 

and yeah.. that thing about lies goes both ways

[Guest BDC]

Simply put I think the reason people hate Bush so much is they are simply told "facts" that are not true. Then they fail to check the proper sources to see if they are true. Instead they accept the information like it came from Jesus Christ himself.

I might be wrong, but wouldn't those people be the ones that aren't mad at him? Would it be other people that are mad that this happens? If that is the case, you ALWAYS have that with every president.

[Guest Loss]

I'll begrudgingly admit that Bush looks better to me everyday. Even as a detractor of his, I could never refer to him as anything less than steadfast. That is sometimes a strength and sometimes a weakness, but it seems to be the quality his supporters love most.

 

My views on Bush are what they are because of his stance against gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research. Whether he intends to or not, the image Bush gives off is that of a trigger happy, homophobic redneck who wants to take this country backwards instead of forward. He's almost identical to Bill Clinton actually, in terms of his policies and positions, he's just not quite as good at pretending.

 

In Bush's defense, if the war in Iraq was about oil and he's so obsessed with oil, how come more drilling took place when Clinton was in office than at any other time?

[cbacon 0]

In Bush's defense, if the war in Iraq was about oil and he's so obsessed with oil, how come more drilling took place when Clinton was in office than at any other time?

Dosen't make Bush's excuse any more reasonable. The United States has been historically notorious for such imperialisation and exploitation.

[Guest GreatOne]

Uh, what part of that "explains" why anyone would dislike Bush?  Because he does stuff?  I'd say 100% of American voters would agree that any President needs to do stuff.

 

People who like to just TALK about doing stuff but stop somewhat short of DOING it are who I'm referring to here.

 

I wasn't aware that getting about the same number of popular votes as the other guy constituted "choking".  Gore hardly pulled a Carter.

 

Must not be aware that the popular vote is nice, but it isn't the be-all end-all. Besides which senator from which state was trampled in his own state in 2000? THAT'S choking. At least Kerry will actually have people from Massachusetts voting for him.

 

"highly debatable"?  Bush froze, plain and simple.  If you'd said "understandable" or even "forgiveable" I would agree, but "debatable" is hardly the word for seven minutes that were very well accounted for.  (And I don't think anyone except Michael Moore would actually hate Bush for that.) 

 

There was a thread on it a couple months back, can someone actually PROVE things weren't being done in that time? So really no one has a problem with Bush for those seven minutes UNLESS someone actually defends him doing so. Alrighty then......

 

You're mad that MTV signed up a bunch of young adults to vote who probably wouldn't have otherwise voted?  Or are you mad that the Kerry campaign has a bunch of young volunteers?  Or maybe you're mad that nobody remembers who John Fitzgerald Kennedy is, apparently some of them "just can't keep pace with it", whatever "it" is.

 

No MTV, Mostly Trendsetting Viewing, pretty much brought a whole new group of voters that have no idea what was going on, similar to now. Can you find one person who will vote for Bush, like myself, that has no idea why? Possible. Can you find someone that will vote for Kerry that has absolutlely no idea why, more likely. As for 'not keeping up with it', that would be in reference to Kerry's daily positional shifts.

 

Oops; did I confuse you by actually, y'know, THINKING instead of blindly following one or another party's line? 

 

Gee, with a grandmother that spent her final 23 years as press secretary for (and vice president of at one point) the Jane Jefferson Demo Club in Spokane and an extended family that mostly leans to the left I wasn't aware I was 'blindly following the party line'

 

The United States has been historically notorious for such imperialisation and exploitation.

 

OK Sylvain Grenier.........................

[Jobber of the Week 0]

People who like to just TALK about doing stuff but stop somewhat short of DOING it are who I'm referring to here.

Actually, all-talk-no-action has probably done more to lowered peoples' views of a politician, IMO.

 

There was a thread on it a couple months back, can someone actually PROVE things weren't being done in that time?

 

Did you ever listen to the recordings from that military command post during 9/11?

 

"So, you wanna scramble some jets?"

"*sigh* I don't know."

 

I don't blame Bush for sitting there, I don't know if going back and reading a book was a right move, but he had something heavy dropped on him like that and was probably trying to figure it out. I didn't understand what was going on either until I saw a TV screen.

 

No MTV, Mostly Trendsetting Viewing, pretty much brought a whole new group of voters that have no idea what was going on, similar to now.

 

And how were things different before this? At least it got more people to register.

[Guest MikeSC]

People who like to just TALK about doing stuff but stop somewhat short of DOING it are who I'm referring to here.

Actually, all-talk-no-action has probably done more to lowered peoples' views of a politician, IMO.

That's, to be blunt, absurd.

 

Clinton made his entire political career out of talking a lot and doing relatively nothing. People LOVE to hear that somebody wants to do big things, but nobody wants them to actually DO big things.

It is 100% true, she was very young. I think maybe 19. You can find the story on any search engine. I mean, don't get me wrong, this shouldn't have any baring on who you vote for as President or anything, but I am kind of drunk and when Jobber brought up Laura Bush's IGNORANCE on stem cell research it reminded me of how lame her opinion on it was...so I decided to drop the "laura bush killed her bf" blast.....but yes, it is true.

 

Here is a site that kind of had fun with the story and all......well umm....yeah here ya go.....

 

ChildButcher

This is the definition of "fluff".

-=Mike

[Ted the Poster 0]

Dosen't make Bush's excuse any more reasonable. The United States government has been historically notorious for such imperialisation and exploitation.

 

Edited for accuracy.

 

It's not Logan's Run down here. America is the most diverse country in the world in almost every way. The unfortunate reality is that we're only given two realistic choices: Shitty Candidate A or Shitty Candidate B. Other candidates- Nader, Keyes, Perot- are basically just fodder in order for the government to give the vague illusion to Joe Idealistic that there is another option. I think this is part of the reason voting numbers have declined so much. People just don't want to put up with the bullshit anymore.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

In Bush's defense, if the war in Iraq was about oil and he's so obsessed with oil, how come more drilling took place when Clinton was in office than at any other time?

we were drilling oil in Iraq from 1993 to 2001? despite that.. embargo..

 

right...

[Jingus 0]

Must not be aware that the popular vote is nice, but it isn't the be-all end-all. Besides which senator from which state was trampled in his own state in 2000? THAT'S choking. At least Kerry will actually have people from Massachusetts voting for him.

Firstly, the popular vote doesn't actually decide the election, but it's a much better indicator than the electoral votes of what the actual will of the people is. And secondly, I'm from Tennessee, lived here all my life. TN is a very conservative state, even moreso now than in past decades. There's NO WAY that any Democrat was going to win that state in 2000, period, no matter who he was. I'm amazed that Gore drew as many votes (48%) as he did here.

 

There was a thread on it a couple months back, can someone actually PROVE things weren't being done in that time? So really no one has a problem with Bush for those seven minutes UNLESS someone actually defends him doing so. Alrighty then......

 

Bush simply sat there and did nothing but read to the children for those minutes. He made no decisions, issued no orders. That is proven and factual. That is not debatable, period. No, I don't have a problem with him freezing up; I might've done the exact same thing. The problem I have is you claiming that it didn't happen.

 

No MTV, Mostly Trendsetting Viewing, pretty much brought a whole new group of voters that have no idea what was going on, similar to now. Can you find one person who will vote for Bush, like myself, that has no idea why? Possible. Can you find someone that will vote for Kerry that has absolutlely no idea why, more likely. As for 'not keeping up with it', that would be in reference to Kerry's daily positional shifts.

 

So, you're blaming MTV for... what again? As much as they hype the Rock the Vote campaign, it doesn't exactly bring in millions and millions of new voters. As to the ones they do bring in, why would they be any more ignorant than your average American?

 

Oh yeah, and this part:

Can you find one person who will vote for Bush, like myself, that has no idea why?

Firstly, the wording makes that a kinda funny statement. Secondly, I live in NASHVILLE; I can find THOUSANDS of people who vote Republican for no real reason other than that's how everyone else they know votes as well.

 

Gee, with a grandmother that spent her final 23 years as press secretary for (and vice president of at one point) the Jane Jefferson Demo Club in Spokane and an extended family that mostly leans to the left I wasn't aware I was 'blindly following the party line'

 

If you'll read what I wrote, I never once claimed that you were blindly following anything. I was talking about your apparent perception of myself. And how does your grandmother working for somebody I've never heard of or your cousin's political opinions affect this debate at all?

 

The United States has been historically notorious for such imperialisation and exploitation.

 

OK Sylvain Grenier.........................

 

Well, we have. The USA has done a lot of bad shit in its time; how about the glorified land grab known as the Mexican War? If you think that America has always treated the rest of the world with decency and respect, then go tell that opinion to the millions of indians who populate the country... oops, all dead.

 

(In reality, I do actually agree with you; the idea that the Iraq invasion was done for oil is ludicrous, we've spent far more money than we'd ever hope to make back from the pipelines. I just wanted to make a point about how America isn't always right, and is sometimes pretty damn wrong.)

 

edit: why aren't the Quotes working?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I'd say the best followup to claiming the Iraq war was about oil involves mentioning that it was and they screwed that up too.

 

But yeah, we've done some bad stuff, and the CIA is alleged to have done bad stuff too.

[Guest Shoes Head]

Can you find one person who will vote for Bush, like myself, that has no idea why?

 

I think my friend qualifies. His father is an excessively conservative retired Sergeant Major from the US Army. He has made it Ann-Coulterly clear that he is not an American if he doesn't vote for Bush. My friend is too busy smoking pot to care, so when election time comes around, he'll get out of work early to go vote because his dad is picking him up.

[NoCalMike 0]

the problem with Bush that irks me is that he does not answer questions, or respond to criticism at all. He just repeats the same lines over and over again, no matter how much they have been pretty much been made to look like fabrications. It is as if Bush's cabinet has him under a tent that is soundproof.....This is why I don't think he will fare so well at the debates, whether Kerry does any good or not.

[snuffbox 0]

the problem with Bush that irks me is that he does not answer questions, or respond to criticism at all. He just repeats the same lines over and over again, no matter how much they have been pretty much been made to look like fabrications. It is as if Bush's cabinet has him under a tent that is soundproof.....This is why I don't think he will fare so well at the debates, whether Kerry does any good or not.

Even a man far more eloquent than Bush would have great difficulty in explaining the mistakes of his regime...

 

Abraham Lincoln himself would struggle to explain the horrible situation in Iraq and this administrations treatment of soldiers, as well as the greatest job losses in American history behind Hoover's Great Depression.

[Special K 0]

Bush'll do fine during the debates. His motto of 'if you repeat it enough, it's true' has, unfortunately, been proven completely true.

[Highland 0]

The Presidential debates will be lackluster, considering who is involved. The VP debates, on the other hand, should be lively.

[Special K 0]

Ok, you know why I really don't like Bush? He puts on a holier than thou front, and he's a complete arsehole. The Bible he reads must go straight from the Old Testament to Revelations.

[snuffbox 0]

Ok, you know why I really don't like Bush? He puts on a holier than thou front, and he's a complete arsehole. The Bible he reads must go straight from the Old Testament to Revelations.

You watch your mouth heathen!

 

Jesus was a man of the wealthy and warmongering, and dont you ever forget that! Praise be!

[Special K 0]

I mean, lots of people LIKE him because he's an asshole. I mean, the Wild Bunch is one of my favourite movies, and I love the characters. But they're still assholes.

[Guest GreatOne]

And how does your grandmother working for somebody I've never heard of 

Technically you're right in never having heard of the club, but tell me you weren't saying you've never heard of Jane Jefferson

[Jingus 0]

Not that I can recall, nope.

[cbacon 0]

 

The United States has been historically notorious for such imperialisation and exploitation.

 

OK Sylvain Grenier.........................

 

Well, we have. The USA has done a lot of bad shit in its time; how about the glorified land grab known as the Mexican War? If you think that America has always treated the rest of the world with decency and respect, then go tell that opinion to the millions of indians who populate the country... oops, all dead.

 

Exactly, it's something that has to be recognized especially in the current political framework and foreign policy issues. I'm not saying this is true of all Americans, but many are so blindly patriotic and conditioned to take whatever their country does to be justifiable.

 

On the other side of the spectrum, you have those that are so outraged but Bush's foreign policy issues (in addition to the domestic economic, environment and social issues). Bush seemingly turned all the sympathy from other nations after 9/11 and within months and turned reverted it back to more hatred and public outcry due to turning the tragedy and twisting it in favor of his own personal agenda. Lies, misinformation, misinformation breeding more lies, whatever you want to call it, it's undeniable that many of the issues surrounding the reasons to go to war and the rationale behind it were not simply 'made up' for the sake of attacking the president, and people need to stop living in such denial.

 

The war has done nothing for the people of Iraq except insert a puppet regieme that will not be able to sustain government , simply because countries like Iraq and Afghanistan will never be democratic nations. There is too much conflicting idelogies within these nations that will not allow this to happen. Iraq is basically made up of different groups that were placed during the early French and British colonies, same with Afghanistan, so they'll basically vote upon different tribes amonst themselves. So in hindsight, thousands of innocent Iraqi, Afghani, and American soliders died in vain for the excuses of the Bush administrations rationale for the war.

 

Knowing the prior history makes Bush's recent statement to the UN all the more appaling and yet another. He was quoted as saying: "We know that oppressive governments support terror while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst". This is very hypocrtical, in the sense that the US government has, and will continue to aid state terrorists that fit their own political agenda. These atrocities are the major ones in a group of MANY others that give reason for Bush to be removed in the upcoming election.

 

Getting back to the other point of this thread, many (remember, i didn't say "all") voting for Bush are buying into the propoganda for whatever reason, whether it be out of the "my country right or wrong" philosophy or the feel need to vote in a Republican right or wrong. Of course the former can also be attributed to inticing a high level of fear within a nation. Hey, Cheney himself basically said that a vote for Kerry is basically inviting another terrorist attack, so he must be right. The exploitation of fear is a very strong means of coaxing people into buying into your agenda.