Of course they can. If only those of us who apparently don’t have the country’s best interests at heart would shut up and get in step, he’d be uniting us all!
I have no idea why Bush-supporters would expect us to shut up now that the election’s over. He won. Fine. Kerry can concede, so can I. That doesn’t mean he’s the right man for the job, and it doesn’t mean that he’s good for America. It just means that he convinced more people to vote for him. Even given the highest reasonable respect and love for democracy, a majority vote doesn’t magically confer objective rightness on the winner.
Bush is still bad for America. He’s still a bumbling incompetent liar. He just happens to be a bumbling incompetent liar who’s bad for America who happens to be the President of the United States for a second term.
Yes, Kerry lost. That doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party has been vanquished. If Bush wants to be a uniter, he’s going to have to urge the Dems to work with him, and he’s going to have to muzzle, to some extent, the right-wing hacks in Congress who are more interested in political scorecounting than in running the country.
For now, I’ll take those blantantly partisan, divisive statements, which imply that Democrats should just give up and not even attempt to represent the 48% of the country that voted for change, as a bit of well-earned gloating and a knee-jerk reaction to the gloom-and-doom from the left side of this board.
I sure hope that Bush knows better than to think that “coming together” means Republicans staying exactly where they are and expecting the Dems to roll over and be patsies. I sure expect that you, Shodan, would not have have wanted the Republicans to roll over in that fashion in 1992, so common sense would mean that should shouldn’t expect Dems to do it in 2004.
Well he is still waiting for Iraqis to roll over… the french to roll over… when “God” is on your side… others should prostrate before you. Don’t expect concessions… sad.
“Turning his attention to the new Congress, where Republicans gained seats in Tuesday’s elections, [Bush] said he wants legislation to fundamentally reorder Social Security and the tax system.”
Bush has divided the country in several obvious ways, none of which has to do with him personally. I don’t know why I’d bother explaining this to one who has obviously not even scanned the headlines of a newspaper for about five years, but consider the following:
Bush uses bogus “amendment” to rally bigots against Gay rights, dividing the country on a sensitive issue.
Bush promises to privatize social security, putting our mandatory investments at risk so others can profit
Bush promises to “overhaul” taxes to further take the burden off of the wealthy and either transfer it to the poor and middle class, run the country into debt, or…
Slash the hell out social programs, although he’ll still have to find a way to pay for his goddamned
Wars, which are only beginning, apparently.
Bush clearly intends to stock the Supreme Court with righties who are bent on thrashing civil liberties.
Bush wants to pursue “faith-based” government.
So there you have it. Seven rifts, none of which are about Bush. Of course none of the people against Bush matter, in his mandate. Fuck women, gays, liberals, pacificists, non-Christians, and everyone else.
…and Scott McClelland just asked the left to reach a little harder, because Shrub’s reach “only goes so far.”
A wise man once said, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
If you get sick whenever you are right, you must be one of the healthiest people in existance.
How this quote ‘proves’ you were ‘right’ I fail to see. Would you care to take a shot at explaining? This is pretty much what he said during the election he would do…he’s doing it. The only shock (to me) is that he didn’t just forget all about it with the election in the bag. Setting that aside, how does this prove he’s a divider in your mind? How does it prove that you are right about him destroying the middle class, blah blah blah? How does it prove anything you’ve asserted, in
fact?
I really hate to break this to you, but the majority of US citizens don’t support Gay marrage at this time. Personally I think they are wrong about that, and I think it will change in the future…but you need to take a reality break here. Bush isn’t using ‘bogus amendments to rally bigots’…the majority of US citizens DO NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRAGE. Get it?
Horseshit. Bush is talking about options for making social security work. The big plan that Bush talked about during the election came out of a BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE looking into ways to help out social security. IF it gets implimented (something I tend to doubt) it would only be for younger workers just getting into the system, not for folks either currently getting social security or who would be receiving it in the next decade. You don’t seem to have a clue as to what this would really be like…I suggest actually looking at the program (and who REALLY put it forth) before ranting on it again.
Again, you are ranting Democrat talking points. Its a debate whether or not giving tax cuts helps an economy or not. As to Bush taking from the poor and giving to the rich, this is just blather. The tax cuts were across the board…the rich just got BIGGER tax cuts than the poor. Guess what? The rich also PAY more taxes than the poor do.
Right. Like that slashing of perscription drug benifits that is going to grant yet another entitlement and cost us over half a TRILLION dollars. :rolleyes: Get real. Only of my major beefs with Bush is that he’s NOT doing what you are accusing him of doing, but instead adding more social programs and entitlements to the system. Had Bush been a Democrat and gotten the shit he’s pushed through on the social side he’d be touted as one of the greatest Dem presidents of all time.
Well, I tend to doubt that they are only just beginning, but I’ll agree with you that Iraq wasn’t the brightest thing he did. One of the major reasons (besides his drunken sailor spending on the social side) that I didn’t vote for the man in fact.
Again, time will tell here but I doubt it. I think he will stock the SC with strict constructionists. We’ll see though.
Horseshit. You don’t have any idea what you are talking about here.
Pretty much goes for your whole post. If you are going to attack Bush (and lord knows there is enough shit to attack him with out there) at least learn what the hell you are talking about first and attack him rationally.
-XT
