Can you flesh that out some more? What specifically will Kerry do (or not do) that will be a disaster? “Stay on the offensive” is awefully vague.
[The following is pun laden and ripe for smart-ass remarks from the Bush-bashers, but what the heck:]
Was invading Iraq an offensive move?
Which offensive actions that Bush is undertaking now would Kerry stop or change significantly?
I’m a Republican. Well, I’m still registered as Republican. I can’t see myself beign a Democrat. So I guess I’ll jump in.
What do you want? Politics? Sociology? Economics? Military? I hate almost everything about the man and his policies in every arena.
It would be easier to list what I don’t dislike (note that I didn’t say “that I like”) about him… he is like a dog. Loyal, honest, stupid. He believes everything he says with 100% conviction (though he isn’t smart enough to analyze those beliefs). Sadly, this is also another of his weak points, since he refuses to change his viewpoints in light of changing situations. That is not, to say the least, a good trait in a leader.
Other than that… He even gives fraternities bad names, and that is hard to do.
Yep… pun laden a lot. I think Bush was always offensive… he continues to be offensive. Offensive to logic, reason and good international manners.
Now back to the Republicans. This thread is interesting…
Republicans: Is there anything you dislike about Bush? Reply to this Thread…
Yes, most emphatically, his enemies.
What a motley crew of malcontents. I yearn for the days of Godless Communism.
Those were the days. Back then we had enemies that we could trust.
Not sneaky bastards like we have today. Insidious cowards like Tom Koppal and the backstabber’s at ABC who tonight will air a television program consisting of nothing but photographs of the brave men and women who have died during our ongoing liberation of Iraq. Ostensibly to honor their memory in prayers of heart felt thanks, but crassly and unforgivably to help Kerry cut and run from our noble effort.
Again I say we have no worthwhile enemies, only sickos whose goal is to wish that our soldiers who died while preforming their duty for their country, men and women, will have died in vain.
What a sorry lot.
So you’re classifying half the population of your own country as “enemies,” Milum?
Must be more of that infamous “compassionate conservatism” we keep hearing about… :rolleyes:
What a train wreck.
Supposed to be an ‘honest response from republicans’ thread has turned into a ‘lets let the Pubbies air out their own problems with Bush and then bash them’ thread.
I`m a conservative foremost and would entertain voting for a Democrat if the choice boiled down to a left-leaning moderate Conservative verses a right-leaning moderate Democrat. Or a Democrat that I thought had the personality and charisma to get the country behind him, (See Edwards).
Anyway Bush IS communication poorly with the opposition (politically). Making deals with the democrats rarely works. Bush could give in to the Dems or some liberal lobbying group with the expectation that there will be future considerations. They never materialize. Sorry guys, but the Dems are very greedy, politically, and working with them is very dificult to do. I can see Bushs` frustration there.
The thing that stands out the most for me (re the OP) is that Bush doesn`t get more agressive in Iraq. I want that war over, without the dead soldiers having died in vain. I want that war clearly won by the Coalition and the US.
I also wish he were more dedicated to reducing government spending.
You haven’t been long in GD have you ? If you call this a train wreck…
I think its gone pretty well actually. With limited Bush bashing and quite frank posts. I see that basically the “other side” hates the same things in Bush we do. We just think that anything else is better… and they don’t think there is an alternative.
Your own discomfort at facing up to the consequences of war doesn’t mean Koppel is trying to undermine our “noble effort”
It has nothing to do with my definition of principle.
Bush’s decision regarding stem cells was driven by his beliefs as to when life begins. I don’t agree with those beliefs, but he at least has the character to stick to his guns and decide based on what he believes is right, instead of just taking a poll or something. I am pro-choice, but not a single issue voter. And the consequences of the stem cell decision are not particularly severe. Thus I can admire the character it takes to make the decision without agreeing with it.
You have got to be kidding.
An extreme example of a foreign leader “pushing around” a President who was perceived to be weak would be the Cuban missile crisis. Or the bombings in Spain. Or the Soviet “Nyet!” policy in the UN. Or the Iranian hostage crisis under Carter.
There are any number of things foreign leaders can do if they think President Kerry is a weakling, from Libya to Africa to Pakistan and India.
As Sam Stone said, Kerry has the potential to be disastrously bad in foreign policy.
My wife needs the PC. Feel free to carry on the anti-Bush orgy for a bit; I will have to check back in tomorrow.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah…it’s totally different than the way you have to wade though the liberals posting “What I didn’t like about Clinton and Gore” and “Things I dislike about Kerry” threads around here. Oh wait. :dubious: I can’t recall too many democrats ever admitting a major democrat has faults. I think they take away their cards if they do.
As for the OP:
The things I dislike about Bush, in order of importance
His infuriating position on gay marriage. Ok, all the fundies cry over the term “marriage” being sullied, fair enough. Let’s call it civil union to make them happy, and give our fellow Americans the rights they deserve as citizens, no matter what label they call it. Call it Chubby Wubby Double Hubby if that makes you happy, the label is the least important thing IMO.
His failure to reverse the damages Clinton did to the American workers with NAFTA. Anyone who thinks the economy was rosy in the late 90s or 2000 obviously wasn’t looking for a job, since the ecomomy (at least in NH) was no worse then than it is now. I didn’t actually believe his promises, but I would have thought he’d have at least made an attempt to improve things…sure it’s better for lobbyists and shareholders, but more than 1/2 of people, including most of those people whose jobs went elsewhere, don’t own stock. I think out-sourcing- globally- has gotten even worse in the past four years, so… ( Don’t tell me Kerry would do anything better, though, I wasn’t born yesterday.)
His proposed increases for NASA. If we had shitloads of money floating around that the government had nothing better to spend money on, then I’d say go ahead, plan a mars expedition. But that’s no so. A fraction of NASA’s budget would pay for my entire state’s k-12 education budget; the 2004-09 proposed NASA budget is 2 Billion, while NH spends just under 100 million a year on education. I know that proponents think there’s all sorts of redeeming values to the NASA program, but none of their arguments come up with any results of the program that benefit the country as a whole nearly as much as properly educated people (who are more likely to be financially independent as adults) would. What’s the use of neato technology if people are being so poorly educated that many of them will never make a good enough living to ever buy it? And why can’t 99% of this stuff be developed on Earth? Rumor has it that most of the inventions NASA claims really were… " I always wanted to be an Astronaut as a kid," a key motivator of pro-NASA folks, is no justification for that sort of spending.
Are you calling me dishonest? Have I just been insulted? Please clarify.
Dear Milum,
How I admire the complete lack of evidence you’ve provided to prove your charge. I just like to express my deepest sympathy. It must be extremely difficult for you that the needless deaths of hundreds of American soldiers who were sent to war on the wings of lies should so inconvenience your political position. Clearly you a victim. Please excuse me while I dry the tear than cannot help but fall as I take a moment to honor your patriotism.
You were saying something about charges without evidence?
The lies:
Saddam had WMDs
He had uranium and was building an atomic bomc
Saddam was tied to 9/11
He and al Qaeda were working together
The threat was “urgent” and “could not wait” because the “smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud”
We would be greeted as liberators.
Sorry, Age Quod Agis. I just assumed you’d be able to remember without my help. Glad to see you read the papers. Be sure to keep up the good work.
Sorry, braintree, your plain assertions aren’t evidence. Especially when so many of them appear wrong.
—>I’m… speechless. Truly. I have no reason to believe that elfkin477 is anything other than an intelligent, honest, and well-meaning person, and the fact that he can perceive the world SO DIFFERENTLY than I do is just plain freakish. There are two political figures from the last 20 years or so who I think are held in unrealistic, “he-can-do-no-wrong” regard by their followers: Ronald Reagan and GWBush. In Reagan’s case, I think it was due to his charisma and the general mood of the nation. In Bush’s time, I think it’s mainly due to the war and ongoing reactions to 9/11. Republicans WORSHIPPED Reagan, and, to a slightly less extent, they similarly woship W.
On the other hand, no one (or almost no one) worshipped Clinton or Gore. I would say most democrats have an attitude relatively similar to mine, which is that while Clinton was an excellent politician and a generally very smart guy, I was extraordinarily frustrated at his stupidity in getting involved in the Lewinsky scandal, which gave the Republicans the fodder they needed to basically destroy the final several years of his presidency. He should have known better. I mean, honestly, how stupid can you get? He also did seem like a bit of a waffler/weasel.
I also think he should have been more determinedly pro-gay-rights. I wish he’d done something (or at least been more succesful in doing something) about health care. In general, most of the issues I care about (social civil liberties) he did a pretty decent job…
As for Gore, the fact that he didn’t win that election is an utter embarassment. The man has no charisma. He also (and this a fault that I definitely see in Kerry) seemed unable to come out and clearly put minor nagging issues to rest. If Gore had a sense of humor and a personality, he could have stood up, made one quick joke about the “invented the internet” thing, then laid out what had actually happened, and presto, the “issue” (and what a pathetic excuse for an issue that was) would have been nipped in the bud. Similarly, while I generally approve of Kerry’s medal-throwing, he does seem strangely unable to clearly and memorably articulate the medals vs. ribbons business.
And there are plenty of other democrats that I’ll criticize. For instance, I’m a California resident, and (while I voted against the recall), I couldn’t bear to vote for Bustamante, because someone who I trust who followed him closely told me that he was too stupid and corrupt to conceivably support.
Anyhow, that there’s the tip of the iceberg. I’m sure if Gore were actually president right now I would have more substantive criticisms to make of him… and if I weren’t so busy hating Bush that I know relatively little about Kerry, I would likely have criticisms of him too.
You mean we weren’t told that Saddam had WMDs? You mean we weren’t told that he was working with al Qaeda or that he was connected to 9/11? You mean we weren’t told that the threat was urgent? You mean that we weren’t told he was getting nuclear weapons? Gee, then what was that whole Niger yellowcake megilah about? You mean we weren’t told that we’d be greeted as liberators? Oh, my God! I just realized that I’m a character on “Dallas” and that the last two years were just a dream!
I hereby resign from this thread. Cognative dissonance is an ugly thing. I can’t bear to look.
Ah, screw — who am I kidding? Cognative dissonace is my pornography. Yeah, baby!
We were told some of those things. Some of those things were said by the Bush Admin, and some weren’t. Some of those things turned out to be false, and some didn’t. And even conceding your entire argument – that all of those statements were made by the Bush Admin (they weren’t) and all of them were false (they weren’t) – that still doesn’t prove that Bush lied about any of them.
Do you still think Luna is made out of cheese, too?