Mothering Forum banner

A question for Bush supporters only

4K views 61 replies 23 participants last post by  cynthia mosher 
#1 ·
Please could you say what exactly you like about Bush and why you are glad he is president?
Also, what do you think of his energy and environmental policies?

Anti Bush folks, please, could you refrain from saying what you don't like about him, because I already know that. It's the other side I'm trying to understand.

Thanks!
 
See less See more
1
#28 ·
What in the name of all that is good and right will it take for some people to NOT DEBATE every single thing they don't agree with? Asking politely. Nope. Begging? Nope. Shaming? Nope, I guess not. WHY???? It is not as though this is the only thread on the whole board in which you can express your opinions. It's not as though you haven't expressed these opinions many times and in many threads. Why can you not simply let it be, as requested, and let a few people have their say without constant contradiction?
 
#29 ·
Ok, I will try to give a little unbiased perspective here.
I am a Bush non-supporter, with parents who financially and any other way they can support Bush, the NRA, and generally any right wing movement that asks for their money. I have vivid memories of their support of Reagan.

This is a long-debated issue in our family. I remember being 13 at the dinner table and trying to understand where in the world they were coming from on it. We have now come to the conclusion that we will no longer "debate" it, but do frequently talk about the facts. Everytime we talk about things that are happening, it seems that more light is shed and we can actually move forward on a few issues.

So, this is what I can glean about "WHY" they support the right.

1. They tend to take the bible literally re many things, rather than seeing it as a myth that is ripe with many insights. So, it leads to some rather "us, them" viewpoints.
2. My dad did 2 tours as a green beret in the marines in Vietnam just after high school -had a very bad experience- (can you say "nnnnn nineteen.." ? ) and tends to take anything that is "anti-military" personally.
3. They are of the TV world. They mostly get their news from places like FOX, CNN, and local paper headlines (usually without reading the whole story). With state controlled television, it seems a difficult place to get the real facts, and/or an unbiased view on things.
4. They are lovely, fun people who are in fact very wealthy, and view America as "the best place in the world". They are enjoying their lifestyle and vote for legislation and politicians that will continue to make the lifestyle a possibility.
 
#30 ·
I'd like to add something to the original question.

Bush is an incredibly radical president. Under his Administration we have seen reduced civil liberties and reduced opportunity for citizen input. He has shut off the flow of government information to the public so that his administration is operating more secretively than the Nixon administration. He sent our nation to war for reasons that were apparently false. His "tax breaks" strike at the services that support the middle class and seem intended to create a wealthy overlord class that will strip the middle and lower classes of political power and rob the government of the strength to halt corporate control of national policy. He's running up a huge national debt and increasing the size of government by eliminating services and building up capacity to spy on citizens.

The things Bush supporters say they like seem awfully mild compared to the fears I have about the loss of freedom and personnal opportunity that Bush's policies represent.

Do you really believe that the few things you like about Bush are worth the risk of letting him completely remodel America?

--AmyB
 
#31 ·
You mentioned the OP- So I thought I'd repost it:
"Please could you say what exactly you like about Bush and why you are glad he is president?
Also, what do you think of his energy and environmental policies?

Anti Bush folks, please, could you refrain from saying what you don't like about him, because I already know that. It's the other side I'm trying to understand.

Thanks!"
 
#32 ·
OK. I am going to explain why I posted wayyy up there with my question abt refering to Shrub as "pro-life".

Anyone that knows me here should know that I never justify my posts - don't need too - it's my right to express myself as well as anyone else's. But since I was one of the first voices of dissent and, apparently, wayyyy out of line, I'll see if I can articulate better.

It was the use of the words "pro-life". Please. Let's at least use correct terms in our descriptions of support. Shrub is "anti-abortion" (which is why most of you support him) but he is definately not "pro-life". I was simply trying to correct that verbage. NM and I did discuss it via pm - I did not realize that, as ususal, I was being obtuse.

The use of terms like that, combined with statements like " It's no wonder that more WMD have not been found." that make me unable to keep silent. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE state your support in truisms, not in spoon fed media rhetoric. THAT may be why we garner other generalizations abt the conservative right................ie: don't think independantly, only vote on one issue, etc, etc, etc.



El
 
#33 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Els' 3 Ones

The use of terms like that, combined with statements like " It's no wonder that more WMD have not been found." that make me unable to keep silent. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE state your support in truisms, not in spoon fed media rhetoric. THAT may be why we garner other generalizations abt the conservative right................ie: don't think independantly, only vote on one issue, etc, etc, etc.



El

First off, let me state that i do not feel that I should need to defend my exact choice of wording, nor should anyone else. But....if you are referring to my wording choice alone, that is one thing....or do you simply need more information or specifics on where i was headed??? Here's one: Recently US officials were led to equipment used to enrich uranium underneath a rose bush in an Iraqi scientist's backyard. It is this type of tactic that i was referring to when I was discussing the fact that I am not suprised more WMD have not been uncovered. It's not as though i took a quote from CNN.com and simply posted it into this thread. I can back up my choice of wording more, but is that really the issue here...or is it the fact that there are many valid reasons to support our president and commander-in-chief???

I also find it humorous that people choose to refer to Mr. Bush as a "murderous nazi" when Sadaam Hussein has slaughtered, raped and pillaged many more Iraqis than we probably even know of, and surely has taken the lives of more Iraqi citizens than were lost during recent war events led by our troops.

Now, i will get back to the OP request for why i support Bush....i will not defend anything else i've already written, but will simply add to it:

1. Bush has not (thus far anyway) used an intern as his personal humidor, nor has he ever been impeached or considered for impeachment.

2. Bush has not been accused or sued for sexual harassment or assault. He did not point his finger at every American during a national public address and lie straight-faced to us about his wild sexual escapades, only to take it all back a short time later and "apologize" for his mishaps.

3. Bush is not, as far as anyone is aware, attempting to dump his millions of dollars of legal bills off onto taxpayers.

4. I'm unclear as to why the arguement continues to arise that Bush is taking money from the poor and handing it to the rich. Poor people have little to no federal income tax liability. How can the poor be expected to receive a tax credit when they are not contributing to the very monies in question????? Our current tax system can be directly related to the Communist Manifesto. Last I heard, America was not a communist society.

5. America was founded on the ideals of protecting peoples that cannot protect themselves.....who could possibly need more protection than an unborn child. The plain truth is that the Bush administration is pro-life, i.e. anti-abortion.......and I, like so many other mammas, applaud that.

Enough said for now.
 
#34 ·
Quote:
or do you simply need more information or specifics on where i was headed???

I was referring to your wording..........because there have been no WMDs found - unless you can give me more info???



Again, I do not wish debate. You are all fine and well to support Bush................but please do not perpetuate lies here and expect them to go unchecked.

El
 
#37 ·
Let's call them "Bush supporters" - not conservatives. My dh has been a die hard conservative republican all his life - he was brought up this way. But NO WAY is he a Bush supporter. So, let's clarify: not all conservative Republicans are Bush supporters.
 
#38 ·
Quote:
Lies and all?
Interesting that what we believe is lies, and what you do is truth. How is that?

why should i believe what you believe is truth? how can you really be sure that you arent being fed a bunch of lies? I understand differing of opinions, points of view, perspectives and all that makes us who we are, but why is it anyone on the "other side" is being fed lies?
 
#40 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by sweetbaby3
Interesting that what we believe is lies, and what you do is truth. How is that?

why should i believe what you believe is truth? how can you really be sure that you arent being fed a bunch of lies? I understand differing of opinions, points of view, perspectives and all that makes us who we are, but why is it anyone on the "other side" is being fed lies?

Please read my posts carefully. I did not say your opinions of Shrub are lies. Did not say what you believe him to be doing (re: education, taxes, environment, et al) are lies. Did not.

I questioned the use of two terms. 1) referring to a man who has executed 1000s of innocents as "pro-life". 2) the use of the term "more" WMD's when, in fact, there have been none.

Got it now?
 
#43 ·
Interesting thread. I think you should all continue posting as this place is even more interesting with diversity. Not that we are all alike or anything...


In addition, NM must get exhausted....soooo stick around and help her out once in a while ey?

Thanks

:ignore Its been tough to keep my big mouth shut
 
#44 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Els' 3 Ones

I questioned the use of two terms. 1) referring to a man who has executed 1000s of innocents as "pro-life"

Got it now?

Els' --

I would like to now question your use of wording......i'd be interested to see where you get the idea that Bush has executed 1000s of innocents.



Iraqi soldiers are not innocents, they are "casualties of war." Besides which, I do not think that there were 1000s killed during the conflict in Iraq. And.....execution is far different that being killed in action.

One more comment, while i am at it.....don't you think that Sadaam has himself killed or contributed to the death of far more Iraqis than were killed by American troops during the war???
 
#45 ·
I believe close to 4,000 "casualties of war" have been reported in Afghanistan. Many of them women, children, elderly, including an entire village, the guardian reported more like 10-20,000.

I can't find the article run by AP about 2 weeks ago that reported Iraqi civilian "casualties of war", but you may want to try looking at www.iraqbodycount.net, which reports similar numbers as what AP ran.
 
#46 ·
in refernce to the AP report:

"Using a rigorous methodology, seven AP reporters in Iraq over a period of five weeks reviewed dozens of documents from 60 of Iraq's 124 hospitals, covering the period from March 20, the war's beginning, to April 20, when the fighting abated. The tally: 3,240 civilians died throughout the country, with 1,896 of those in Baghdad alone. But AP referred to these totals as "still fragmentary" with the likely figure "significantly" higher. "

from http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpu...ent_id=1920081
 
#47 ·
El's, I think that a man who is privvy to the MOST international information, from sources like the CIA, is much more capable of making a decision whether the colateral damage of lives lost in a war is worth the outcome of winning the war on terror, than someone like any of us who only know what we are told.

Unless you have some kind of security clearance into the oval office...I don't think you are in a possition to be questioning the strategies that our Commander in Chief is using to fight this dangerous war. I think it would be much more appreciated if you just sat back and enjoyed the freedom that you are provided BECAUSE of the fight on this war.

And, whether you voted for him or not, and whether you agree with him or not, I do think that the most powerful man in the world deserves a little more respect than to be called "Shrubs." I didn't vote for him, but he is my President and I will stand behind him and respect him...until I cast my next vote anyway.
 
#49 ·
FTR........(again)..........and I'm only responding on this thread bcuz I was directly posted to:

I am not questioning or debating whether the pResident warmonger's decision was right or wrong. I was questioning the use of the term "pro-life" to describe him. That he even debates the amount of collateral damage (ie: deaths to innocents) really makes me wonder how he can be referred to as such. Even the press does this - I find it truly amazing how we are spoon fed sound bite terms and injest them w/o thought. He is anti-abortion, not pro-life.

Please don't twist my words into something other than what I have repeatedly said......................

El
 
#50 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Safemommy
making a decision whether the colateral damage of lives lost in a war
IMHO, once you are able to refer to a human life being lost as "colateral damage", then it is much easier to continue in that vein.

Why is it that when our "own" children, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc, etc, are MURDERED, they are not referred to as COLATERAL DAMAGE?????

(As I recall, the defintion of colateral reads something like this: either it is money or property to secure a debt, or of secondary importance. - an interesting way to refer to dead people.)
 
#51 ·
As stated by dictionary.com:

pro-life (pr-lf)
adj.
Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.

To my knowledge, we are not losing any embryos or fetuses because we are fighting in the middle east.

As for colateral damage -- I am sure that Bush prays for our soldiers everyday and wants to do everything possible to minimize casualties. However, based on the information he has, he feels that the loss of life in the war would be less than the loss of life because of terrorism or Saddam Hussein. That is what is meant by colateral damage. I don't think he minimizes the value of those lives.

Which is the BIGGEST reason I support Bush right now....I think we need to fight this war on terror and fight it HARD. I think he is doing a good job with that.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top