If You Voted for Bush, Do You Have a Right to Complain? (health care, deaths)

[happyappy]

Originally Posted by ProudCapMarine

I dislike Bush for many things, but he has kept the terrorists out of America so well, that an important Defeatcrat calls the War on Terror only a bumper sticker.

The Defeatcrats have made sure Bush will go down in American history as a patriot and one of the best presidents.

You have no way of knowing if the Bush regime has kept terrorists out of America.

They stuck a big stick into a giant hornets nest in the Middle East and now the hornets are swarming everywhere; they’ll make new nests where they can protect themselves better and be able to react more quickly against their tormentors in the future. It is now impossible to kill enough of them to win the “war on terror,” whatever that is. Killing will not be a solution to this abomination of foreign policy.

I am a patriot; you probably are as well. In fact, there are probably LOTS of patriots posting in this thread. Who knows, maybe there are actually hundreds of millions of patriots in America.

He will go down in history as the first figurehead propped up by the first modern-day tyranny to get so close to undoing our Democratic-Republic.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by happyappy

There is no administration I can recall as an adult that has done more to damage America in so many different ways as has this Bush/Cheney regime, but I have yet to call any of the despicable neocons in charge traitors by reason of committing treason. I genuinely dislike people who use that word against someone with whom they merely disagree; I mistrust them and consider them to be possibly dangerous.

I can admit to having several times read the Espionage Act for its potential applicability to those within the administration who were involved in the Valerie Plame affair. It is approximate in its relevance there, but that is as close as I have come to using the word treason. Certainly, I have been forced to use the word criminal on many more occasions than I would have welcomed. But wanton criminality is often best described by that word.

But the right is characterized in one sense by its cadre of screaming extremists -- people to whom the War-On-Someone is a constant state of mind. And in war, moderation is no virtue, and extremism no vice. We have all around us the evidence of what disgrace and disaster results from heeding the advice of the screamers. Yet still, they persist. Go figure...

[happyappy]

Originally Posted by citigirl

What you should find ludicrous is your statement. Every day in many threads on this forum liberals paint all Republicans with that same broad brush as Christian fanatics. Where is your outrage when that happens?

By the way I am not here as a recruiter seeking people to adopt my point of view. I’m thinking that most all posters here are at least 18 and are equipped to make up their own mind. I did not come here with an agenda of indoctrination and propaganda. I’m a conservative so that’s not my game.

Then if civil discourse is not your intent, why do you post? Discussion is about learning other points of view and bouncing around ideas with the hope of gaining more knowledge, maybe even a little wisdom with which to apply said gained knowledge. One may not change one's original position one iota, but knowledge has been gained and possibly some enjoyment has been found. And thus the reason it's called civil discourse.

What have you accomplished in your posts when you use your tactics? If fact, what have ANY of the posters done who use your tactics? Nothing but reinforce the original positions in the minds of those being painted by the giant brush, THAT'S what that tactic accomplishes.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by happyappy

He will go down in history as the first figurehead propped up by the first modern-day tyranny to get so close to undoing our Democratic-Republic.

The longer this debacle goes on, the smaller chance I see that this administration will not be remembered as the worst in US history. I can see the word 'bushie' working its way into the everyday vernacular of generations to come. As in parents encouraging children to their homework with the caution, "You don't want to grow up to be a bushie!" Or in a popular retort to a particularly dumb thing to have said being, "What, are you some sort of bushie?" That is the level of respect I see coming for this administration from those who will have to live and deal with the consequences of it...

[citigirl]

Originally Posted by happyappy

Then if civil discourse is not your intent, why do you post? Discussion is about learning other points of view and bouncing around ideas with the hope of gaining more knowledge, maybe even a little wisdom with which to apply said gained knowledge. One may not change one's original position one iota, but knowledge has been gained and possibly some enjoyment has been found. And thus the reason it's called civil discourse.

What have you accomplished in your posts when you use your tactics? If fact, what have ANY of the posters done who use your tactics? Nothing but reinforce the original positions in the minds of those being painted by the giant brush, THAT'S what that tactic accomplishes.

I could be wrong but I think these forums have an "ignor" feature that allows you to block post from those you do not want to see. I am not sure how that works. When I see you complain about post from the left that "paint with a broad brush" I will take your question serious.

[happyappy]

Originally Posted by saganista

The longer this debacle goes on, the smaller chance I see that this administration will not be remembered as the worst in US history. I can see the word 'bushie' working its way into the everyday vernacular of generations to come. As in parents encouraging children to their homework with the caution, "You don't want to grow up to be a bushie!" Or in a popular retort to a particularly dumb thing to have said being, "What, are you some sort of bushie?" That is the level of respect I see coming for this administration from those who will have to live and deal with the consequences of it...

Agreed. It's very disconcerting to know that January 2009 is so far away.

As to the new vernacular, Wikipedia already has something, though I predict as you do that much more derogatory meanings will be created and attached in the future.

Bushie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don’t think Cheney will escape having vernacular develop from his wrong-doing. In the future, groups who intend to bypass standard procedures and develop plans to accomplish nefarious goals outside of public scrutiny will find a way to “cheney-up” a program for fast-tracking.

Or a marketing group will find a way to “cheney” a contract without allowing competition.

[jeremeyk482]

Again, nobody has intelligently answered my question on page 5.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by jeremeyk482

Again, nobody has intelligently answered my question on page 5.

I'm not too computer literate, and can't find "page 5", but I'll assume you want to know why MORE Americans don't disapprove of Bush. I'll bite:

I suppose it would have to do with the dismal fact that, like him or not, in front of the world, he's still "our" president. There's probably some built-in need to defend him in front of others, just as an abused wife might "defend" her violent husband in front of her siblings. WE know he's a disappointment, but it's annoying to hear that from foreigners.....something like that.
Furthermore, there's the fact that we're now in this war, and there's just no "nice" way to get out. Win, lose, or draw. we're going to "lose", no matter what we do. You can't start a bar-room brawl, and then "call it off" halfway through. You start it, you're committed.
Lastly, I'd guess there's a big fear of the "next" guy. Bush is a given---we more or less have a "feel" for what he will or will not do. But our extreme disappointment in him, and the fact that his "cowboy" personna so deceived us, has some of us doubting our own wisdom. If this guy, with all his rough edges, succeeded in "fooling" us so thoroughly, what might a "smoother", more polished successor do?

I know this all sounds negative, but it's my guess that some of it may be a factor---and at least I gave you an answer......

[jeremeyk482]

Originally Posted by macmeal

I'm not too computer literate, and can't find "page 5", but I'll assume you want to know why MORE Americans don't disapprove of Bush. I'll bite:

I suppose it would have to do with the dismal fact that, like him or not, in front of the world, he's still "our" president. There's probably some built-in need to defend him in front of others, just as an abused wife might "defend" her violent husband in front of her siblings. WE know he's a disappointment, but it's annoying to hear that from foreigners.....something like that.
Furthermore, there's the fact that we're now in this war, and there's just no "nice" way to get out. Win, lose, or draw. we're going to "lose", no matter what we do. You can't start a bar-room brawl, and then "call it off" halfway through. You start it, you're committed.
Lastly, I'd guess there's a big fear of the "next" guy. Bush is a given---we more or less have a "feel" for what he will or will not do. But our extreme disappointment in him, and the fact that his "cowboy" personna so deceived us, has some of us doubting our own wisdom. If this guy, with all his rough edges, succeeded in "fooling" us so thoroughly, what might a "smoother", more polished successor do?

I know this all sounds negative, but it's my guess that some of it may be a factor---and at least I gave you an answer......

Thanks - this is among the best posts I've seen regarding why people still support this president. It's actually not very negative, more positive than anything IMHO. Whether he's our president or not, I still don't support him. Having family in Iraq, however, I support our troops and thank them for a job well done, whether we win or lose (which at this point, looks like the latter). I agree we cannot just leave Iraq, no questions asked. We have gone in there, torn apart their home and wrecked havoc on the world because of it.

My question wasn't why people support our President. It was why there are still people who still support this war?

Seeing that I haven't gotten many responses, is it safe to assume most folks support Mr. Bush and this war because of his moral and "ethical values?" Citi, I'm waiting on you!

[happyappy]

Originally Posted by jeremeyk482

I used to be a Republican and voted for Bush in the '04 elections. At that time, 9/11 was still fresh on my mind and, being so close to NYC, I was still angry with the deaths of so many Americans. I felt that voting for a change in our leader at such a crucial time in history would be irresponsible.

Now, three years later, I've noticed patterns of psychological warfare inflicted upon the American people. I realized there were no WMD's. I noticed that the majority of the civilized world was embarrassed for America because our president had lead us into a war with a hidden agenda. We were tricked.

Social issues aside, why are there not more people in this great country who don't disapprove of our President? The low approval rations are still way too high. I'm not quick to buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theories but I do think our government took full advantage of the tragedy.

Thank God for 2008.

There no doubt are many reasons, but a few, in my humble opinion, are:

1) Lots of Republicans hate Democrats (and vice versa) and would never say anything disapproving of Bush because they would then be seen as agreeing with Democrats.
2) Lots of Republicans believe that no matter how bad a President Bush is, he’s a Republican and is without any doubt better at the job than any Democrat could be who would occupy the office instead.
3) Lots of Republicans are afraid America will be attacked and that America’s citizens will be unable to defend themselves and that Bush will protect us all.
4) Lots of Republicans believe in the “tinkle”-down theory of economics.
5) Lots of Republicans are accepting of the mild-mannered, fatherly authoritarian leadership idea because they believe leaders know better about what the people need and want than the people themselves; they trust their leaders without reserve.
6) Lots of Republicans want to see all the world live and act in the same manner as determined by America under the strong leadership of a Republican administration whose leadership is determined and guided by whatever group claims the highest morals and ethics (i.e. those same Republicans), and in this case it's Bush.
7) Lots of Republicans think Democrats want to take away their guns so, no matter how bad Bush is, he is after all a Republican and won’t take away their guns.
8) Lots of Republicans believe that Bush will prevent the spreading of beliefs to which they are opposed and will punish in some way those who are intent on spreading them.

From the information available in various media, it appears that ever more Republicans are anti-Bush and anti-Bush Administration, and that those represented in the above items 1-8 are a small minority. But for all of the Republicans in items 1-8 I can’t imagine there will be any question that they will vote for ANY candidate who wins the Republican nomination.

The problem for the Republican Party now is how to fill all the various positions necessary to carry on an administration without carrying the baggage of the Bush administration or bringing in new baggage similar to the old. Hopefully, those Republicans who are anti-Bush Administration will nominate the candidate most significantly different than BushCorp.