Bushbots, since I can't ask for your brains, get yer asses in here...

[Shodan]

@gobear

I like all the Bush supporters; they’re good people. (Yes, I like you, too, Shodan, just because you annoy the dickens out of me on occasion doesn’t make you any less likable.)

I should do a vanity search more often - I’m genuinely touched.

And the least I can do in return is to say that the warm feelings are entirely returned.

Regards,
Shodan

[World_Eater]

@RedFury

Why do this? Or more especifically, what’s to gain from doing so? Simple really – sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire. And I believe w/regards to this Bully-Band one needs to stand up to them in no uncertain terms. Shove facts down their throats once and again, add heavy doses of scorn. Lather, rinse, repeat.

From a person who has argued once or twice around here in all my years, I think this is a bad move, if only because it’s ineffective. I’ve made a resolution for this year to limit personal insults, and to simply grind these people out with indesputable facts and a shitload of patience. If there’s any hope of changing minds, I feel this is the most productive manner in which to do it.

Of course it’s annoying as hell that I have to waste time to talk someone out of walking into a burning building, but I digress.

[eleanorigby]

Go Red , go.

I put all things up to what I call the Clinton standard. I hear a bit of news and say to meself–what would happen if this were Clinton?

And ya know–every time, every issue, every fuck up–Clinton would not have gotten “away” with. If the press and Congress and all these Red state folks would examine Bush under the microscope the way they did Clinton–we wouldn’t be where we are now.

But Bush gets away with it. I am convinced that he could kill someone inthe Oval office and still be lauded by the press and his acolytes. Nothing, nothing touches him. Not incompetent advisors, not his inability to communicate in any language, not his fear of un-vetted questions, not his arrogance, his “mis-speaking”, his disingenous treatment of his childhood and military “service”(good ole boy, my ass), not his abuse of ILLEGAL substances, nothing. He is untouchable.

And here we are.

I would have a great deal more respect for any GOP’er, if they would state that they do not hold to Bush’s agenda in every facet. If they would say–ya know, Iraq was handled badly and we need to make some changes. Instead, we are told that we are pessimists! There’s an answer!
I am tired of being told I am a bleeding heart, I am a pessimist, I am un-American, un-patriotic, big spender, PC, socialist, flag burning, baby killer Spawn of Satan–you name it. Am I saying that people here have done that? No-but I haven’t been here all that long…

Reps-take out the beam in YOUR eye before berating me for the mote in mine. You will get “your way” over the next 4 years–and then we will spend the next 40 repairing the damage.

We get to criticize the POTUSA–we do. You had your turn during the Clinto era–now it’s ours. Deal.

[Chefguy]

@Starving Artist

…we focus on what’s good about the war and the positive things that result from it. And of course, we have the advantage of recognizing that much more good will result from it than bad.

Next question?

You focus on what’s good about the war? It would seem that these terms are mutually exclusive, but let’s see:

Good: one petty dictator and his cronies removed from office.

Bad: Tens of thousands dead. Cities flattened. Economy ruined. Insurgency that won’t die. Staggering national debt. Foreign relations in ruins. Public officials assassinated. A government that lies to us. U.S. soldiers torturing prisoners. Suspicious persons held without legal grounds or counsel.

The good that will result: a democratic government that will collapse within six months of our leaving, due to the assassination of all significant leaders.

[Metacom]

@Chefguy

Good: one petty dictator and his cronies removed from office.

Bad: Tens of thousands dead. Cities flattened. Economy ruined. Insurgency that won’t die. Staggering national debt. Foreign relations in ruins. Public officials assassinated. A government that lies to us. U.S. soldiers torturing prisoners. Suspicious persons held without legal grounds or counsel.

You forgot a major “Good”:

Good: After the invasion, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Wheeeeee! I’m spinning!

(And don’t forget “loss of international respect” under “Bad”)

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

As someone pointed out above and this very thread serves as confirmation of, the fact is that you have a divided country – almost neatly fractured down the middle. Does that mean that +/- 50% of your citizens can – or should – be labeled “Bushbots”? Not hard to figure that one out, as The Book many of you so are so fond of wisely says: 'By their actions you shall know them." Substitute “words” for “actions” and there’s your answer with regards to this MB.

You overexagerate the division. Voters are pretty much 33% Republican, 33% Democrat, and 33% independent. The latter group could easily vote either way, given the right candidate. But your analysis does have one advantage-- justifies your feeling of self-righteous about waging your war.

Naming names, I speak of the Usual Suspects – and they know who they are – the ones that show up in just about any thread that ‘dares’ criticize Fearless Misleader, his cohorts, and the ever-expanding list of their blatant fuck-ups. And my attitude towards them is simply a reflection of their own towards me. I’m neither trying to ‘reach’ them, nor do I expect any semblance of dialogue between us.

Yeah. It would be much better if your political allies could just jerk each other off in every thread and not be annoyed with an opposing view. After all, your political views are facts, and the other sides’ views are mere opinions.

There are a few (very few) die hard republicans on this board who’ll defend Bush 99% of the time, no matter what. But there are at least as many, probably more, die hard Democrats (or die hard Bush-bashers) who’ll jump all over Bush 99% of the time, no matter what. Sounds to me like you just wrote a manifesto announcing your plans to join that second group. Fire with fire, and all that.

[El_Kabong]

Naming names, I speak of the Usual Suspects – and they know who they are – the ones that show up in just about any thread that ‘dares’ criticize Fearless Misleader, his cohorts, and the ever-expanding list of their blatant fuck-ups.

Bit of a hijack, perhaps, but I really, REALLY am getting tired of seeing the term ‘the Usual Suspects’ over and over again in these threads. Ruins my enjoyment of Casablanca, for one thing. For another, the term is not confined to those of the Right. Frankly, the esteemed (and steamed, apparently) Mr. RedFury, is becoming something of a Usual Suspect himself, IMO. I suggest that those who are quick to throw that term around might want be careful lest they get some of their tar on themselves.

Oh yeah, and about this:

To quote your Dipshit In Charge: Bring it on. You’ll get it back in spades.

“Bring 'EM on” was the correct phrase, apparently. Anyway, just wanted to mention that Mr. Bush, and I can’t believe I read this, has admitted that it was probably a mistake to have made that remark:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/10640407.htm?1c

[rjung]

@El_Kabong

“Bring 'EM on” was the correct phrase, apparently. Anyway, just wanted to mention that Mr. Bush, and I can’t believe I read this, has admitted that it was probably a mistake to have made that remark

Yeah, especially since the insurgents are now using it to taunt our troops:

Departing from fiery Islamic slogans, Iraqi guerrillas have launched a propaganda campaign with an English-language video urging U.S. troops to lay down their weapons and seek refuge in mosques and homes.

The video, narrated in fluent English by what sounded like an Iraqi educated in the United States or Britain, also mocked the U.S. president’s challenge to rebels in the early days of the insurgency to ‘bring it on’.

“George W. Bush; you have asked us to ‘bring it on’. And so help me, (we will) like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?,” asked the narrator before the video showed explosions around a U.S. military Humvee vehicle.

[gobear]

@rjung

Yeah, especially since the insurgents are now using it to taunt our troops:

Bush’s lunkheaded comment certainly gave the insurgents a fun rhetorical tool to use as propaganda, but you don’t seriously entertain the idea that the insurgency wouldn’t be bringing 'em on if he hadn’t said “bring 'em on,” do you?

[RTFirefly]

@Starving Artist

But to answer the question at the heart of your rant, which is to wonder why we can support the war when you can’t, the answer is simple: We’re optimists; you’re pessimists.

You see the glass as half-empty; we see it as half-full.

You see the Iraq veteran’s limbs as half there; we see them as half blown off.

You see a country where half the people live in places that are only moderately dangerous; we see a country where half the people live in a battle zone.

You see a country where half the roads are safe to travel on…if you’re smoking something powerful. We see a country where even the road from the airport to the Green Zone is acknowledged to be unsafe by our own government, as well as the Brits.

You see a country where half the schools have been repainted, we see a country where foreign investment has completely evaporated.

You see a country where an election will shortly happen. We see a country where the election will be prologue to civil war.

Most of all, we see a country where us gloom-and-doomers have been right from May 1, 2003, to the present. Are things better there now, or were they better there six months ago? Six months ago. Were things better last July, or last January? Last January. Were things better there last January, or in July 2003? July 2003. Remember when (even though it was wrong) high US government officials could at least semi-plausibly claim that the violence in Iraq wasn’t any worse than that found in America’s major cities? That was during the summer of 2003. You don’t see anyone saying that today, because they’d be laughed out of the room. In the summer of 2003, the main obstacles to holding elections were supposedly the needs for an accurate census, and educating the Iraqis in the ways of democracy. Now, the main obstacle is violence, lots and lots of violence.

You focus on what’s bad about the war and the negative things that result from it; we focus on what’s good about the war and the positive things that result from it. And of course, we have the advantage of recognizing that much more good will result from it than bad.

Well, what are the good things that have resulted from this war? Saying something good will result from it is really easy. I can say with equal ease that if Kerry had been elected, we’d already have world peace and a balanced budget, just because Congress and the U.N. would have worked overtime the past two weeks to bring his visions of government and diplomacy to fruition. Doesn’t mean shit in either instance.

[World_Eater]

@gobear

Bush’s lunkheaded comment certainly gave the insurgents a fun rhetorical tool to use as propaganda, but you don’t seriously entertain the idea that the insurgency wouldn’t be bringing 'em on if he hadn’t said “bring 'em on,” do you?

That’s besides the point. It made him (us) look stupid. He should shut his damn mouth and cease from saying things that look stupid. He said laura chewed him out after the “dead or alive” thing, and that he’ll try and cut down on the cowboy talk. Let’s hope he does.

[KidCharlemagne]

@GaWd

As far as I can tell, only the OP is truly making sweepingly broad generalizations. Your generalization that those of us who dare question the line of thought behind the people the OP brings up are “yo-yo’s”, is pretty thin.

Sam

I’m not placing you, GoBear, MaxtheVool, or Polycarp in the yo-yo camp. I’m all for questioning lines of thought.

[gobear]

[QUOTE=World Eater]
That’s besides the point. It made him (us) look stupid. He should shut his damn mouth and cease from saying things that look stupid.
/quote]
It would be diffuclt for him to govern using only interpretative dance, which is the only way I can see Bush NOT saying things that sound stupid. The man’s a congenital idiot. And the MBA doesn’t confer intelligence on him as if he were the Tin Woodman getting a diploma. He’s a fool.

He said laura chewed him out after the “dead or alive” thing, and that he’ll try and cut down on the cowboy talk. Let’s hope he does.

Yeah, on the day Michael Jackson wins Father of the Year.

[eleanorigby]

I don’t think we need to drag the nation and the world thru hell while Bush’s learning curve finally takes shape.

The POTUS should KNOW to not make infantile, macho challenges…

Gee, he regrets is now–how big of him.

[World_Eater]

@gobear

Yeah, on the day Michael Jackson wins Father of the Year.

I figure since the election is over he doesn’t have to pander to that demographic anymore.

[Homebrew]

I don’t see how admitting the term “was a little blunt” or that “I guess it’s not the most diplomatic of language” is admitting he made a mistake. Although it is probably as close as he get to an admission of failure. Instead he seeks to play it off as just his folksy way.

“So I do have to be cautious about, you know, conveying thoughts in a way maybe that doesn’t send wrong impressions about our country,” he said.

Notice he just says that he has to be cautious, not that he’s dead wrong or incoherent most of the time.

[rjung]

@gobear

Bush’s lunkheaded comment certainly gave the insurgents a fun rhetorical tool to use as propaganda, but you don’t seriously entertain the idea that the insurgency wouldn’t be bringing 'em on if he hadn’t said “bring 'em on,” do you?

Of course not – it was simply the flashy, overdone flourish for a monstrously boneheaded political decision, made by a monstrously boneheaded idiot with delusions of grandeur.

[Floyd13]

First of all, I agree with the OP, these people are sick twisted fucks who can no longer be helped. I’m sick of the religious right holding society back and then apologizing for it 50 years later. Go fuck yourself, just like Don “the con” Rumsfeld. Why should we play nice when the other side spews hate and prejudice everywhere it goes? I’ve got a great campaign slogan for Hillary/Obama in '08. ‘Fuck the south’. I mean Shrub does it with his, “You’re either with us or against us”. It worked for him, it can work for us.

And this shit about the good stuff from the war? That’s like saying you’re happy about he tsunami because it restored the beaches back to the way they used to be, clean and white. Forget the rotting corpses, we have white beaches and Saddam is gone! WooHoo!

And this cowboy shit is embarrassing. In the immortal words of George Carlin (sorry you have to share that name with such an imbecile Mr. Carlin), “See anyone wearing a pirate outfit lately?” How about getting a wardrobe consistent with the century you’re living in, oh mighty White House plant.

Ok, I feel better now. Well, not really. I mean, sinking down to Shrub’s level is gratifying at first, but…it’s kind of like fucking a hooker. It’s fun at the time and all, but the next day you realize you’re just as slutty and dirty as she is.

[Loopydude]

@gobear

Bush’s lunkheaded comment certainly gave the insurgents a fun rhetorical tool to use as propaganda, but you don’t seriously entertain the idea that the insurgency wouldn’t be bringing 'em on if he hadn’t said “bring 'em on,” do you?

Well, firing massive ordinance at someone is probably difficult to trump in terms of inciting those on the battlefield; but one must consider that if some component of the “insurgency” is not Iraqi born-and-bred, “Bring 'em on!” probably makes really good propaganda in the mosques and madrassas for recruiting foreign fighters. It’s not difficult to imagine our President seems less like a liberator, and more like a bellicose and belligerant warmongerer to those who are not inclined to view him in a positive light to begin with. Why not try to rally the troops with something a bit more positive and thoughtful than an effective gauntlett-to-the-cheek of the militant Islamic world, especially what with we being all peace-loving and just and all?

[annaplurabelle]

@eleanorigby

I don’t think we need to drag the nation and the world thru hell while Bush’s learning curve finally takes shape.

The POTUS should KNOW to not make infantile, macho challenges…

Gee, he regrets is now–how big of him.

What she said.

Why isn’t it enough that Bush is unqualified for the job of POTUS?

When did loyalty to The Leader become more important than what he should represent? This is how I qualify Bushbots, or whatever term you want to use. This is what is dangerous.

He’s not a true Conservative. He’s not even a true Republican. He’s a radical extremist. If you consider yourself a Conservative or Republican, and yet agree with the Bush admin. on most issues, then I suggest you re-think your own self-identification. Perhaps you are a radical extremist too. Face it and embrace it, if you must.

But if you find that idea repugnant, I suggest you keep thinking on it. Not necessarily here, publically, on a messageboard, but in the privacy of your own heart. What principles are you willing to give up for The Man, or The Party he currently heads (and therefore defines)? Why?

Loyalty to The Leader, or even The Party - over loyalty to the US Constitution, your fellow citizens, your own principles??? Why?