Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-12-2007, 05:53 AM
 
Location: FL/TX Coasts
1,465 posts, read 4,053,104 times
Reputation: 434

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
None of your assertions or assumptions is logically related to my questions to you, which involve your willingness to see conspiracies and abuses of civil liberties where you either have no evidence or no rational explanation of your suspicions, beyond rumors and partisan political claims.
It’s ironic how you relate to the “evidence” or "no rational explanation" otherwise it’s not true. Where were you when Bush was presenting his contest for the war…the famous WMDs and the Saddam link to missing Ben.

 
Old 11-12-2007, 07:29 AM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,406 posts, read 18,922,903 times
Reputation: 8910
Quote:
Originally Posted by prim2007 View Post
Back to the original topic. I think it's too soon for those that voted for Bush to have any regrets. It won't be until years later when books/articles document the full ramifications of this war, budget deficit, diminished international relations/and creation of more enemies with access to nuclear weapons, overdependence on foreign imports, etc. that regrets will occur and more people will view Bush as being one of the worse presidents in our history. This is coming from an Independent that has trouble fully supporting either party and thinks both are lacking good presidential candidates.
You have more faith in people than I do. I don't believe that they can think that long-termed. That's why newly elected candidates, if they are going to raise taxes, generally do so right after coming into office, to give years to cushion that shock from the next election.

I think the indebtedness that He has caused us will mean cut programs or tax increases in the future, and those actions will be blamed on whomever is in office at that time, especially if the right wing spin machine is operating practically unchecked, as it is now.

People who come home from work tired each night want entertainment, and much of the right slanting programming seems not to require anything of a person but that they trust the host. The host is a safe place, tells them what to think which relieves them of the strain of figuring things out for themselves, gives them an enemy to aim their end of day frustrations at, which also provide some weak laughter. Most liberal programming presupposes that the audience is already familiar with the news of the day, and generally uses irony in place of humor, which if the audience is not familiar with the subject, can easily go over their heads.

I find, in my experience, that most people who are heavily on the right (not your moderate libertarian type) are either the somewhat naive type spoken of above or else they are in a position to feel threatened financially by the opposition. They tend to be cutthroat industrial types who are very lacking in empathy and compassion and pretty much think the rest of the world can go to hades so long as they have theirs(and perhaps a small cadre of similar thinkers). THey also are not overly caring of which party or person is in power so long as it furthers their ends.

It is so rare that a President comes into office with a balanced budget, but Bush did. He was one of the few who started with a clean slate. So he is sinking us into a much bigger hole than any other Presiedent has ever done.
 
Old 11-12-2007, 08:21 AM
 
996 posts, read 3,268,721 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by prim2007 View Post
Back to the original topic. I think it's too soon for those that voted for Bush to have any regrets. It won't be until years later when books/articles document the full ramifications of this war, budget deficit, diminished international relations/and creation of more enemies with access to nuclear weapons, overdependence on foreign imports, etc. that regrets will occur and more people will view Bush as being one of the worse presidents in our history. This is coming from an Independent that has trouble fully supporting either party and thinks both are lacking good presidential
candidates.

It is too soon to judge. It may turn out that Bush has done exactly the right thing for this country, just as we now know, years later, that Clinton did the wrong thing by not capturing OBL when he had the chance and by not taking the several attacks against Americans in the years prior to 9/11 seriously. Foreign imports, budget deficits, enemies with nuclear weapons, etc. are not exclusive to this president.

I have no regrets and there is no need to feel any sympathy. I have no candidate at the moment that I am sure about, but I do know that this country does not need Hillary Clinton as president, as all this will do is keep fanning the flames of partisianship in Congress and the rest of the country. We need a candidate that can be more "middle of the road", and bring the country together instead of scoring points for their political party.
 
Old 11-12-2007, 08:39 AM
 
996 posts, read 3,268,721 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
People who come home from work tired each night want entertainment, and much of the right slanting programming seems not to require anything of a person but that they trust the host. The host is a safe place, tells them what to think which relieves them of the strain of figuring things out for themselves, gives them an enemy to aim their end of day frustrations at, which also provide some weak laughter. Most liberal programming presupposes that the audience is already familiar with the news of the day, and generally uses irony in place of humor, which if the audience is not familiar with the subject, can easily go over their heads.

I find, in my experience, that most people who are heavily on the right (not your moderate libertarian type) are either the somewhat naive type spoken of above or else they are in a position to feel threatened financially by the opposition. They tend to be cutthroat industrial types who are very lacking in empathy and compassion and pretty much think the rest of the world can go to hades so long as they have theirs(and perhaps a small cadre of similar thinkers). THey also are not overly caring of which party or person is in power so long as it furthers their ends.

It is so rare that a President comes into office with a balanced budget, but Bush did. He was one of the few who started with a clean slate. So he is sinking us into a much bigger hole than any other Presiedent has ever done.
So what you're saying is that those that watch one of the few conservative programs are either morons that can't think for themselves or successful business owners that have no compassion for others? But on the other hand, liberal viewers of the condescending mainstream media are intelligent, thinking, and kind to others.

Bush may have started with a clean slate, but also had the "so rare" attacks on 9/11 to deal with shortly into his term. He had the support of the majority of the country and Congress when the war in Iraq started; it wasn't until it became difficult that everyone bailed, with the help of the MSM and it's unending left-slanted attacks (oh, excuse me; reports).
 
Old 11-12-2007, 08:43 AM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,551,846 times
Reputation: 2823
No more than for those who voted in this do nothing, name-calling Congress. I would vote for Bush again tomorrow if he were running against Kerry.
 
Old 11-12-2007, 08:56 AM
 
8 posts, read 16,483 times
Reputation: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorado0359 View Post
Those individuals who voted Bush into the White House must feel like Horse manure right now, particularly about the direction (down hill fast) he has taken not only the United States, but the entire World. Although those voters who put Bush into office seem to always put on a good "game face" in public, they have to be totally humiliated, disgraced and regretful about not only their association with Mr.Bush, but also their decision to put him into office.

Again, I was pondering if any of you have any sympathy for these individuals and the depressed state of mind they must be in right now.
I voted for Bush twice, and I would vote for him again in a second. Bush has principles, and unlike Clinton, stands by what he says. Clinton changed day to day depending upon the polls, Bush dosen't care about the polls, he cares about this country. Sometimes peoples opinions in polls are wrong, and Bush is taking the heat of those opinions, and standing firm. If Clinton or Al Gore were in office, would we now be a training ground for terrorist? The polls say: War=bad/ Did 9/11 really happen/ are terrorists really SO bad? So if you go by the polls, then leave Iran, embrace terrorists, and open our borders to anyone who wants in. At least Bush stands firm on his beliefs.
 
Old 11-12-2007, 09:01 AM
 
8 posts, read 16,483 times
Reputation: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzenfreund View Post
Not really, I have sympathy for those that did NOT vote for this guy, but have to suffer the consequences and most of all, will have to PAY for the consequences.

Those that voted for him for the fist time and wised up and did not vote for him the second time, maybe... but those who voted for him again??? No. They are the kind of people that will vote for someone just because a certain label is attached to them, be it "christian" or "conservative" or whatever... obviously Bush is none of the things he claimed he would be (remember the "uniter" LOL?).
And voting for Hillary is not voting for a label? I know allot of women who can't wait to vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman, or a liberal, or a democrat or Bills wife. Everyone votes for the label we see in someone. Wether they are pro this, or against that or in that party or the other, they ARE a label to us. It may not be the label YOU agree with, so you consider it wrong. I voted for Bush because I agreed with him, call that a label, because it is.
 
Old 11-12-2007, 09:04 AM
 
8 posts, read 16,483 times
Reputation: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66nexus View Post
lmao They should feel sympathy for us but we all live with the decision
I am more sorry I voted for Perot. I don't believe you guys. Just because the "approval rating" is low, or you think Bush has gotten us in a bad war,,,,, you disagree with your vote? I think ANYONE who EVER voted for Bill Clinton or especially WILL vote for HILLARY should just go out and shoot themselves.
 
Old 11-12-2007, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Blankity-blank!
11,446 posts, read 16,149,024 times
Reputation: 6958
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccalvin57 View Post
I voted for Bush twice, and I would vote for him again in a second. Bush has principles, and unlike Clinton, stands by what he says. Clinton changed day to day depending upon the polls, Bush dosen't care about the polls, he cares about this country. Sometimes peoples opinions in polls are wrong, and Bush is taking the heat of those opinions, and standing firm. If Clinton or Al Gore were in office, would we now be a training ground for terrorist? The polls say: War=bad/ Did 9/11 really happen/ are terrorists really SO bad? So if you go by the polls, then leave Iran, embrace terrorists, and open our borders to anyone who wants in. At least Bush stands firm on his beliefs.
What are the principles of Bush? He has beliefs, yes, but his beliefs are not connected with reality. Bush lives in an alternate universe.
Bush is stubborn, like a stupid fly that buzzes against the window. His stubborness is not getting us anywhere. He doesn't think, he beieves. He can't explain anything.
In what way does Bush show his concern for the country?
If we go by the polls, I don't think it's necessary to leave Iran, because we aren't even there...yet.
What makes you think that people who disapprove of Bush want to embrace terrorists?
 
Old 11-12-2007, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
788 posts, read 2,106,385 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentown View Post
It is too soon to judge. It may turn out that Bush has done exactly the right thing for this country, just as we now know, years later, that Clinton did the wrong thing by not capturing OBL when he had the chance and by not taking the several attacks against Americans in the years prior to 9/11 seriously. Foreign imports, budget deficits, enemies with nuclear weapons, etc. are not exclusive to this president.
Maybe Clinton didn't go after OBL because of the Mogadishu incident.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top