i was wondering, you republicans/dubya fans?

juanbenae · juanbenae's Garage

do you guys really think that dubya and his administration are doing a good job? i know my blind hatred for him will not allow me to acknowledge, or notice anything he may have done that is positive. there i said it.

so my question is, is your blind allegiance to him that has you guys seeing everything he does as ok or positive? even defend it in many cases. or is it that you guys are so much republicans that since he's you party's guy you need to back his act/policies?

some here will say the liberals will pile on and blame dubya for a natural disaster, but in the same vein don't you guys defend him beyond logic sometimes? now, i prefaced this by stating that my blind hatred for the man fogs my ability to see any good he's done, but does it not swing back the other way too with some wearing rose colored glasses when it comes to your view of the guy?

ive tried to explain why i hammer the guy, try to inform me as to why you think his actions and policies are worth defending. i really would like to know how some can see the job he is doing and say "all is well, and he is a great leader".

TerryBPP · 09-02-2005, 12:03 PM

I am a repub, but not the biggest fan of G dub. Mostly because of his manner. He is not a good speaker, therefore seen as a bad leader. But, on the other had Clinton was a great speaker but didn't do much in office. Do I think Kerry would have been better? different Sh_t, same smell.

RallyJon · 09-02-2005, 12:22 PM

GWB has his problems and has made mistakes. Quite a few in fact. I think most conservatives realize that.

So why defend him? Look at who's doing the attacking. The negative comments often come from whiny, shrill, holier-than-thou liberal *****es posting catty, sarcastic rants that go way beyond reasonable constructive criticism. Faced with the propect of aligning with that sort of over-the-top bashing, conservatives swallow hard, and defend Bush.

This was said before during the election--if liberal critics were more reasonable and presented their opinions in a respectful manner which acknowledged the legitimacy of those they consider beneath them, there would be more reasonable dialogue.

lendaddy · 09-02-2005, 12:24 PM

I think his biggest failure (in a public relations sense) is his inability to bite his lower lip and give puppy dog eyes.

But seriously, yes...I think he's an excellent president. The problem is he should have been president 50-100 years ago. People today don't like an honest straight shooting, stand up for what you believe leader. They want a Bill Clinton, a do nothing, shell of a human with great tag lines who photographs well, and feels your pain. The video of him going laugh to cry upon seeing a camera on him at Web Hubble's funeral comes to mind, you loved that guy! Unreal to me.

W is like a Lombardi trying to coach a team full of Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, etc... He's too real for today.

HardDrive · 09-02-2005, 12:28 PM

I think I can understand the passions involved here. Some of the utter BVLL***** that get thrown at the guy is outrageous. See my 'Jesse Jackson' post.

island911 · 09-02-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k911sc
. ..but in the same vein don't you guys defend him beyond logic sometimes? . . .

I don't feel that I'm defending him as much as simply knocking holes in some seriously silly lib rhetoric.

keep in mind I did vote Against Bush 2x. This Bush-bashing culture is apparently the "cool" thing to do. You guys secretly seem to want to be like M Moore --and that is the single biggest push I have to argue for Bush.

--it's the fair & balanced thing to do.

AFJuvat · 09-02-2005, 12:32 PM

I am a republican and a conservative.

GWB is not doing the best job IMO. Personally, I would have much rather seen John McCain win the nomination 6 years ago.

That said, I still identify more with GWB than I ever did with Kerry, Gore, or Clinton.

One thing I've noticed around here is that there is a perception that all republicans are rabid conservatives, all democrats are bleeding heart liberals.

Rush is full of $hit, O'riley is full of $hit, Hannity is full of $hit. The Liberal talk show hosts - they are full of $hit too.

AFJ

speedkillz · 09-02-2005, 12:45 PM

Let's look at it this way...In a managers position, which GW is, If you knew that, lets say hypothetically, your truck needed x anount of gas on sunday, you have a big trip on monday. Do you say to yourself...(A) I'll get it taken care of now....Or (B)...I'll wait till next friday to light a fire under my ass to go get some cause I'm sure I won't run out. That is what Buba does every day. He waits till ??? lights a fire under his ass. All I have to say is If you worked that way at you place of employment. you wouldn't work there long. Plus have you ever noticed, he never looks into the camera with a sincere look.

island911 · 09-02-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speedkillz
.. .. Plus have you ever noticed, he never looks into the camera with a sincere look.

So You like a Good con. ...

Bill Clinton feels your pain.

turbo6bar · 09-02-2005, 12:56 PM

I voted for GW the first time and against the second time. I think he is doing an OK job. I think he does not give enough lip service to the citizens and that makes him look bad. MSNBC televised a briefing with GW and officials in MS and AL. Efforts seemed to be going very well there, which seemed to indicate the Federal and State governments were not posing with finger up bunghole. Things in NO are another story, I'm afraid.

I think some Federal actions are pure BS, but I also think it would be the same with or without Weakest Link in place.

I fully expect liberals and Democrats to criticize GW's efforts down to his last bowel movement. It is healthy for the country to have some yin-yang, but I think the lib/democrat movement loses credibility when they fail to present any decent alternatives. Fine, Iraq might be a total clusterfock, but what are some good exit strategies or proposals (I hear crickets right now). It is easy to run a country when things are good, but real leadership will guide us when things are really crappy. Right now, I think we have a leadership vacuum. Perhaps these guys lack testes, or this is the norm.

speedkillz · 09-02-2005, 12:58 PM

BC had his own problems...that wasn't the topic.

island911 · 09-02-2005, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speedkillz
BC had his own problems...that wasn't the topic.

Neither was your Bush bashing diatribe.

Ed Bighi · Ed Bighi's Garage

I am a republican but my hatred of him started on the day he instulted america's intelligence by claiming that 9-11 happened as a hatred of freedom. That is even worse bull***** than the old " I feel your pain " crap that the last idiot used to deliver. For me it was downhill ever since. Then he started to spend money so quickly that I started to wonder which party he belonged to. Not to mention the fact that this money waste put the tax cuts that some of classic fiscal conservatives/social liberals waited years for in jeopardy. Trust me, tax cuts are good. Just check out the economy of any industrialized country with taxes lower than ours. But not when you go nation building which is a money waste every time. I won't get into that now though. Then came the religious bs. It was as if they just shut the door on the old northern republican base in order to appeal to the southern base who could care less about the old gop fiscal beliefs. As for helping corporations, it would not have been so bad if he would have helped them democratically. But to help only a few choice ones? Nah pal. Don't like him at all. I dislike the man no less than Clinton or Kerry. What I would not do for someone like Perot, who cannot be bought, running the country right now. And no, I will not say McCain since I think he is an inside player just as much as Kerry and Bush are. CFR and all. So, I will no longer vote until I see a good social liberal and fiscal conservative in one package. They are around. Just not as much here as in places like Liechtenstein. Someone who does not spend billions to wage a war for the single purpose of securing the position of the dollar instead of the euro as the fiat currency for oil trading. There are subtler ways of achieving that end. After his actions, we might now lose that position on principle alone. But what really irks me about this guy is how he took a cue from the Clinton school of bull*****ing the masses, added some evangelical rhetoric, mixed in some patriotic noise, threw in some some neo-cons who have always had a disturbing social conservative and many times fiscal liberal mindset ( they are willing to bend on the fiscal to achieve old goals), and then used it all to chase a unilateral middle eastern policy which won us no friends or allies of any great influence other than the UK. Not to mention singlehandedly bringing in fundamentalism in what was previously a secular country in a very fundamentalist region. Not a good recipe for global stability, deficit reduction, dollar strength, but most important, the respect and approval of america abroad. I would also like to add that, like Clinton in previous conflicts, he also let the cat out the bag as far as reminding the world that even the US has a tough time fighting a war of attrition. Even with our new toys. Something that could be a great advantage to Iran as far as allaying their fears of american intervention when it's really called for.

speedkillz · 09-02-2005, 01:14 PM

Island...I guess the answer to the topic question is... NO

dd74 · 09-02-2005, 01:20 PM

I'd never vote for him again, though I did the first time around. But I'd sit down and have a beer with him. Bush seems like the good ol' boy types that have fun stories and no how to party. Problem is, he doesn't drink anymore...

As for GW the man, the problem with GW is GW himself. Who is he? Since 9/11 he's done as much waffling as Kerry did during his campaign. He's trying to appease so many elements of The Right that to me the man sounds distracted and out of touch. For example, we'll never know the full story with Iraq and why it's happening. Is it about WMDs, terrorism, OBL, oil, security or a vendetta? I simply see him as a guy who's in over his head and easily confused.

A long time ago before GW came on the scene - I think this was during Clinton's first term - there'd been talk about pushing GW into the WH, and how GW himself was resistant to the idea. I'm not saying The Right put a gun to his head and told him to run for president. But maybe GW knew more about himself that others were not willing to acknowledge: that then, as now, he is, on some levels, not qualified for the job.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 09-02-2005, 01:26 PM

jesus christ Ed, that was beautifully put.

for me, it's mostly about:

rushing into a war that while could have been executed brilliantly start to finish, was rushed, and therefore too many are paying the price

ROI. the money we've borrowed from China to fund the war is going to cripple the country 3-7 years down the road. When you borrow $200B+ and you burn it in Iraq, that is $0 (hard or soft) returned to the GDP or the quality of our public/infrastructure, it could very well be the worst business decision ever made.

I've posted before, what if you borrowed $200B from the Chinese to:

Build a truly world-class education system
or
Build the best high-speed broadband infrastructure
or
Incent the private sector to REALLY come up with alternative fuel vehicles

it would be money well spent and the deficit spending/borrowing could be defended against a future payback/strength of the country.

All I ask is you to consider what $200B would have done for any of these objectives, each of which would yield huge dividends down the road.

Instead of investing in the future of this country, bush has squandered in the present.

Payback will be a b!tch, and it will by you and me making the payments.

island911 · 09-02-2005, 01:33 PM

hmmm . . .A question directed to those who have supported Bush, here on this forum . ..

Yep, that TOO must be an invite to bash Bush.

You Bush bashers . . eh . .carry-on (like the stench from a turd, I suppose we should just accept it)

dd74 · 09-02-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
hmmm . . .A question directed to those who have supported Bush, here on this forum . ..

Yep, that TOO must be an invite to bash Bush.

Yep, that was my initial thought to. This thread couldn't have been the result of something as innocent as a request for information, or inquiring minds want to know.

So I took the bait...

artplumber · 09-02-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k911sc
i know my blind hatred for him will not allow me to acknowledge, or notice anything he may have done that is positive. there i said it.

so my question is, is your blind allegiance to him that has you guys seeing everything he does as ok or positive?

Well that must have been cathartic! I think that these discussions are usually polarized from the start. People also have a tendency to escalate, and that's why when you enter a discussion with the above view someone's going to respond in a like manner on the other side. My own views are definitely conservative leaning, but I would not characterize GW as a great president or suggest that everything he does is right. And I do take issue with the childish nature of some of the accusations leveled against him, which if anything, makes me try to demonstrate said childish nature (remember the hair & suit comment response?).

juanbenae · juanbenae's Garage

no, i do not recall a hair and suit comment?? please refresh. it must of been pretty good, or i was drunk when i typed it.

i have said before i could have given a rats ace about who was president until i got a taste of dubya's act when he 1st ran 5 years ago. you know, when he swift boated mccain and smeared him and his service to our country in VN. he has done nothing since to demonstrate anything other than that it's his way, at any cost, human life, money, or his integrity.