|
Question for all the Bush apologists out there
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NYCTrancefan |
Why do you believe that the Bush administration is held in such contempt and disdain by over half of American society and practically the world over or if you believe they aren't then why is this so as well considering what we have seen. No U.S. administration has been so reviled, despised and looked upon as pathetic as the current one.
Frankly the only people who seem to believe that America is on the right track are the Red States of our Union and well thankfully Ohio is waking up, this time Florida will be counted properly as well despite the efforts of certain parties. The Bush apologists never seem to think that this administration has committed grave errors under any circumstances whatsoever. When you look at their actions they have gone against many Republican principles, uncontrolled deficits and spending the likes of which we have never seen, government involvement in facets of American life all in the pursuit of terrorists and which defy the logics of what it means to be an American.
I would love to hear the Bush supporters answer these issues because what does the Republican party currently stand for besides screaming war and terror. Is American domestic conditions even important anymore or have we become a nation obsessed with fear and paranoia on a daily basis. Sickens my stomach just to think what America has become. 4 more years of Shrub and I am making a grad school trip to the University of Toronto until he is gone and I can be proud of my nation once again for what it stands for the world over. |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
Yea- Im getting to a point where I can actually afford to go travel overseas and now I really dont want to- where are we welcome still without fear of getting kidnapped or bombed?
Sad |
|
|
| Q5echo |
at the risk of sounding cliche', i identify with Bush's values. simple as that. i could go into detail but i don't think that would be appropriate here. the detail should be self evident in my posts (if you even read my posts).
i also believe the democratic party has a long term agenda for this country in Socialism or a reasonable facsimile of it that might resemble Western European countries but be as socialist as a country like America could be. i know that is way out there but i'm talking long term here, like towards the latter half of this century.
flame away droogs |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i also believe the democratic party has a long term agenda for this country in Socialism or a reasonable facsimile of it that might resemble Western European countries but be as socialist as a country like America could be. i know that is way out there but i'm talking long term here, like towards the latter half of this century. |
I don't think that's really that far out there. Hillary is waiting to lead the charge. Socialism is the hidden agenda(not so hidden these days) of the far left.
With respect to the above comments--it takes courage to be a real leader and lead on your principles. It would certainly be the easy way out to have a president be a puppet of the people, but then he wouldn't be a leader, would he? The right decisions aren't always the most popular ones.
NYTrance, I'm sorry you've lost faith in your government. I wish you the best with your post-grad studies. You'll still be welcome here in 4 years. |
|
|
| Orbax |
Its nice to see someone stand up for what they believe in ie, action. Im sure if we had Clinton he'd give Saddam a big ol' hug and maybe suck his dick, but then, we'd have to watch him do some more genocide and mass murders and raping and hope that the ever-effective UN will do something...maybe like their awesome campaign into Rwanda! Except they'd never touch the middle east, so lets not be that hopeful.
Anyway, itd take a pretty ballsy person to say that Saddam should be left to his own devices and not bothered. What everyone seems to be bitching about is that "Heyyy! you guys did it all by yourselves! Who are you to judge!?"
Moral Relativism at its finest. Im so glad to see that the Europeans have such a ecumenical view. Also, saying that the rest of the world doesn't agree doesn't mean a whole lot. Technically, the UN is the rest of the world, or close enough to not matter, and every ing time they have failed. Its great to see so many hands across the world bull, but when it comes time to take some ethnic cleansing bastard out, the hands start dropping into pockets and everyone looks away.
So yeah, the reason I like Bush is because he did something. They came up with a plan, and executed it well. "but were still there! people are dying!" its a ing war!!!!! its barely started and your complaining it isnt over yet you impatient s! Do you know how LONG hostilities typically last? hundreds of years! thousands in the case of the middle east. and its been how long so far? You blame the government for the very impatience you created with your "I want what I want when I want it" attitudes.
There have been a lot of whiners, but not a whole lot of problem solvers out there. Next time you guys are protecting 300 million people you tell me how youd hold a candle light vigil for the terrorists families instead of cleaning up.
Bah. I at least can understand why people dont like him, but this rabid ABB policy is just as extreme and unpleasant as the fundies. I have my issues with Bush, a good amount. But to not see anything good, to have that idea of ANYONE but him!, is just ludicrous, and frankly UnAmerican. Our nation was founded on the freedoms of others to think independantly. All the bandwagoning of this is, in my view, against the very nature of the fiercely independent American that has been typified throughout our history. Until these days. Where its either love or hate, and God forbid if you are a moderate thinker who sees both sides! eek! how dare you not blindly follow one side or the other!!
anywho. Bush has character, he isnt the one running the show so who cares if he isnt the brightest guy on earth. Politicians were never required to be geniuses in all fields, just to have an understanding of relationships and hopefully have some morals to guide those. It is the job of the military to run the war, treasurer to handle money, etc... To think Bush is this moron who sits there saying "if we print more bills, we'll be richer! take care of that for me" is retarded. Again, its that blind idealism that seems to be in vogue these days.
more later if you actually read all this :D |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
Why do you believe that the Bush administration is held in such contempt and disdain by over half of American society and practically the world over or if you believe they aren't then why is this so as well considering what we have seen. |
I don't understand the question.
However, the same can be said about Clinton and the 'other side' of the country when he ran. He was highly disdain by traditionalist, I don't think Bush is suffering any worse fate than Bush did from the opposing side of the Ailse. The only concession here, is that hollywood and the media (alla before FoxNews) seemd to be more tolerable of a democractic president.
As for the world, I do not believe this is the direct fault of Bush. The fire was already blazing since Regan, he just added a little fuel by mistake. Regardless, the world has adapted to tolerate Bush. They can stand four more years of him, even if they don't like him much.
| quote: | | No U.S. administration has been so reviled, despised and looked upon as pathetic as the current one. |
Not true. Read the history books. Just because things 'feel' bad, doesn't mean they've never been this bad before. Did you live to remember during Regan?
| quote: |
The Bush apologists never seem to think that this administration has committed grave errors under any circumstances whatsoever. |
Not true, but feel free to point them out.
As for Iraq, this is a post-hoc argument. We know a lot more today then we did then. Regardless, many issues (not just WMD) were raised, and the basic premise for me was that Iraq violated internetional law giving USA the a valid legal causes bellum.
| quote: | | When you look at their actions they have gone against many Republican principles, uncontrolled deficits and spending the likes of which we have never seen |
Again, read some history. It's not the first time that we've gone into deficit. And large is a unquantifiable term. I support the Bush led tax cuts, and war budget. Personally, I would have wished he would have left more children behind and cut HMO spending and privitized social security. :disbelief: But he has more important agendas, and regardless spending is a CONGRESSIONAL decsisson NOT PRESIDENTIAL.
| quote: |
, government involvement in facets of American life all in the pursuit of terrorists and which defy the logics of what it means to be an American. |
Let me say, first I disagree. I don't believe there is any large change in government involvement. Allowing federal agents to surf the internet is not that much of a big deal for me, and I believe the Patriot Act does a good job of giving law enforcement such tools. That being said, I don't like Mr. Ashcroft and he scares me.
Once again though passing LAWS is a CONGRESSIONAL decission, NOT a PRESIDENTIAL one.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
He appeals to me.
k thx |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
My ultimate point comes back to the issue of credibility, I granted this administration the benefit of the doubt over Iraq and believed what I was hearing about weaponsin Iraq. American representatives stood before the entire world and said that Saddam possessed all these boogie man weapons that could inflict such dire consequences on U.S. interests. Its all B.S. as far as I am concerend. Hindsight or no hindsight I placed a trust in the government and frankly the rationale for war was way off base. Iraq wasn't an inkling of the threat it was made out to be. I can never trust the words that come out of the mouth of this administration again, we have no credibility or position of strength when we term other nations human rights abusers, possessing nuclear weapons ala North Korea and Iran.
How can you guys not see that America could never start another conflict in this world because its major premise for engaging in Iraq was proven to be absolutely lacking any merit. I just cannot accept invading another nations on the premise of freeing others, that is not our role in the world, who are we to be so arrogant. A nation such as America has influence throughout this world and the precedent that Iraq has set will set us back in ways that we cannot even begin to fathom. Admit it Bush lost focus on what the real issues were and frankly Iraq was not the issue but international terrorism, that is where the resources should have been committed to that are now being pumped into Iraq. No Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, no links of Iraq to orchestrate terrorist attacks on America and yet a full scale war against a sovereign nation in the heart of the Middle East is necessary. I must be missing something indeed. You can congratuale Bush on being steadfast and committed but that is a quality that isn't always positive as Iraq demonstrated. America will never be considered freedom fighters in Iraq because there is no trust of the U.S. being there, I wonder why. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
My ultimate point comes back to the issue of credibility, I granted this administration the benefit of the doubt over Iraq and believed what I was hearing about weaponsin Iraq. American representatives stood before the entire world and said that Saddam possessed all these boogie man weapons that could inflict such dire consequences on U.S. interests. Its all B.S. as far as I am concerend. Hindsight or no hindsight I placed a trust in the government and frankly the rationale for war was way off base. Iraq wasn't an inkling of the threat it was made out to be. I can never trust the words that come out of the mouth of this administration again, we have no credibility or position of strength when we term other nations human rights abusers, possessing nuclear weapons ala North Korea and Iran.
How can you guys not see that America could never start another conflict in this world because its major premise for engaging in Iraq was proven to be absolutely lacking any merit. I just cannot accept invading another nations on the premise of freeing others, that is not our role in the world, who are we to be so arrogant. A nation such as America has influence throughout this world and the precedent that Iraq has set will set us back in ways that we cannot even begin to fathom. Admit it Bush lost focus on what the real issues were and frankly Iraq was not the issue but international terrorism, that is where the resources should have been committed to that are now being pumped into Iraq. No Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, no links of Iraq to orchestrate terrorist attacks on America and yet a full scale war against a sovereign nation in the heart of the Middle East is necessary. I must be missing something indeed. You can congratuale Bush on being steadfast and committed but that is a quality that isn't always positive as Iraq demonstrated. America will never be considered freedom fighters in Iraq because there is no trust of the U.S. being there, I wonder why. |
seee thread on kerry the dolphin part2
good credibility?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
My ultimate point comes back to the issue of credibility, I granted this administration the benefit of the doubt over Iraq and believed what I was hearing about weaponsin Iraq. American representatives stood before the entire world and said that Saddam possessed all these boogie man weapons that could inflict such dire consequences on U.S. interests. Its all B.S. as far as I am concerend. Hindsight or no hindsight I placed a trust in the government and frankly the rationale for war was way off base. Iraq wasn't an inkling of the threat it was made out to be. I can never trust the words that come out of the mouth of this administration again, we have no credibility or position of strength when we term other nations human rights abusers, possessing nuclear weapons ala North Korea and Iran.
How can you guys not see that America could never start another conflict in this world because its major premise for engaging in Iraq was proven to be absolutely lacking any merit. I just cannot accept invading another nations on the premise of freeing others, that is not our role in the world, who are we to be so arrogant. A nation such as America has influence throughout this world and the precedent that Iraq has set will set us back in ways that we cannot even begin to fathom. Admit it Bush lost focus on what the real issues were and frankly Iraq was not the issue but international terrorism, that is where the resources should have been committed to that are now being pumped into Iraq. No Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, no links of Iraq to orchestrate terrorist attacks on America and yet a full scale war against a sovereign nation in the heart of the Middle East is necessary. I must be missing something indeed. You can congratuale Bush on being steadfast and committed but that is a quality that isn't always positive as Iraq demonstrated. America will never be considered freedom fighters in Iraq because there is no trust of the U.S. being there, I wonder why. |
I think you're being a bit melodramatic.
Furthermore, I'm beginning to think your comments aren't entirely genuine. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I think you're being a bit melodramatic.
Furthermore, I'm beginning to think your comments aren't entirely genuine. |
LIKEWISE |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I think you're being a bit melodramatic.
Furthermore, I'm beginning to think your comments aren't entirely genuine. |
Melodramatic, Not genuine, man the responses are getting very weak. Its all facts and if they aren't then please dispute them, melodrama and questioning genuineness are not suffice to say political discussion strengths. |
|
|
|
|
