I don't have hatred for Bush. I voted for him in 2000 (regrettably, in retrospect). I just think he is utterly unfit for the office. Arrogance and incompetence are a devastating combination. Add to that bravado and you have summarized the characteristics that describe Mr. Bush's ruinous presidency.

 

.

As a voter for Bush in 2000 and 2004, you might be correct in your observations. But, yet, knowing what I know now, he is STILL better than the two choices the Democrats offered us.

 

And to compound the issue, instead of learning from their two losses against what should have been a very beatable candidate and offering an option that the voters who put GW in office will consider, they are offering more of the same.

 

The mindset seems to be, "Well, we thought he was beatable in 2000 and 2004 and could offer just anyone as a candidate and win because we are Democrats. Now because of him his party is really beatable and we can just offer the same ole mindset."

 

Instead of seeing that they lost in 2000 and 2004 because they no longer represented the mindset of the voters, they feel we are going to vote Democrat just to not vote Republican. They have won many, many elections on that point but I believe that mindset might be changing.

 

My parents have NEVER voted Republican since Ike. They are both in their 70's. After watching the Republican debate, I about keeled over when they said they would vote for Mike Huckabee and some of the other Republicans.

 

Funny thing is the MOST Democrat Republican candidate, Rudy G, they would not vote for.

As a voter for Bush in 2000 and 2004, you might be correct in your observations. But, yet, knowing what I know now, he is STILL better than the two choices the Democrats offered us.

And to compound the issue, instead of learning from their two losses against what should have been a very beatable candidate and offering an option that the voters who put GW in office will consider, they are offering more of the same.

 

The mindset seems to be, "Well, we thought he was beatable in 2000 and 2004 and could offer just anyone as a candidate and win because we are Democrats. Now because of him his party is really beatable and we can just offer the same ole mindset."

 

Instead of seeing that they lost in 2000 and 2004 because they no longer represented the mindset of the voters, they feel we are going to vote Democrat just to not vote Republican. They have won many, many elections on that point but I believe that mindset might be changing.

 

My parents have NEVER voted Republican since Ike. They are both in their 70's. After watching the Republican debate, I about keeled over when they said they would vote for Mike Huckabee and some of the other Republicans.

 

Funny thing is the MOST Democrat Republican candidate, Rudy G, they would not vote for.

 

How can you say that President Bush is still the better choice? You can't compare Gore or Kerry to Bush saying that would have done the job worse, when you don't know what type of job they would have done, because they were never in the position. Also at this point you can't say they would have been the better choice either. All you can do is go by what Bush has done. Scary thought I know, that is why if you support him, you have think there is someone out there that would have done a worse job, eases the conscious

How can you say that President Bush is still the better choice? You can't compare Gore or Kerry to Bush saying that would have done the job worse, when you don't know what type of job they would have done, because they were never in the position. Also at this point you can't say they would have been the better choice either. All you can do is go by what Bush has done. Scary thought I know, that is why if you support him, you have think there is someone out there that would have done a worse job, eases the conscious

Kerry and Gore absolutely do not represent my views. They would have put issues and made decisions contrary to what my views on matters are. I do not know that for a fact and can only go on what they said they would have done.

 

I would assume that partial birth abortions would still be legal because they indicated that they feel that is a woman's choice and the previous Democrat president vetoed a similar bill that would have outlawed that procedure. And MORE Americans would have been killed in the name of CHOICE than will die in Iraq.

 

The two SC justices that were appointed would have had a much different mindsets than the two that are now on the Supreme Court.

 

Based on their statement of overturning the tax breaks, I would have less money in my pocket today. HHSDad did a general figuring for me in a thread somewhere on here and it would be somewhere around $2500 per year less in my pocket. Over the past 4 years that would be $10,000 less in my pocket.

 

BASED ON THE POSITIONS THE CANDIDATES TOOK, yeah I can say pretty accurately that they would have done a worse job.

 

I am NOT HAPPY with GW. But sadly would repeat my votes over Gore/Kerry. I hope that the Dems give me a choice in 2008 but fear they will not.

Kerry and Gore absolutely do not represent my views. They would have put issues and made decisions contrary to what my views on matters are. I do not know that for a fact and can only go on what they said they would have done.

 

I would assume that partial birth abortions would still be legal because they indicated that they feel that is a woman's choice and the previous Democrat president vetoed a similar bill that would have outlawed that procedure. And MORE Americans would have been killed in the name of CHOICE than will die in Iraq.

 

The two SC justices that were appointed would have had a much different mindsets than the two that are now on the Supreme Court.

 

Based on their statement of overturning the tax breaks, I would have less money in my pocket today. HHSDad did a general figuring for me in a thread somewhere on here and it would be somewhere around $2500 per year less in my pocket. Over the past 4 years that would be $10,000 less in my pocket.

 

BASED ON THE POSITIONS THE CANDIDATES TOOK, yeah I can say pretty accurately that they would have done a worse job.

 

I am NOT HAPPY with GW. But sadly would repeat my votes over Gore/Kerry. I hope that the Dems give me a choice in 2008 but fear they will not.

 

I'm not going to turn this into an Pro-life or Pro-Choice thread. You can't base a job performance on positions, when everyday in the world there are new challenges. How they handle those new challenges are just as big if not bigger then their views before taking the job. Bush is worship by Republicans as strong on terrorism, when 8 years ago who really knew his position on the matter. To say they would have done a worse or better job is a matter of opinion not fact.

I'm not going to turn this into an Pro-life or Pro-Choice thread. You can't base a job performance on positions, when everyday in the world there are new challenges. How they handle those new challenges are just as big if not bigger then their views before taking the job. Bush is worship by Republicans as strong on terrorism, when 8 years ago who really knew his position on the matter. To say they would have done a worse or better job is a matter of opinion not fact.

Yes, most definitely it is a opinion and not fact. And I ONLY have to go on what Gore/Kerry said they would do. Same way when I chose NOT to vote for them.

 

And based on what THEY SAID they would do, they would have been a worse President for this country than GW would have been, IMO.

 

That is not saying I think GW is a good president or saying he is a bad president. They simply would have been worse.

 

If you cannot judge his performance based on positions what are you going to judge it on? I guess you cannot judge his performance on Iraq by his position that the US needs to "stay the course."

Yes, most definitely it is a opinion and not fact. And I ONLY have to go on what Gore/Kerry said they would do. Same way when I chose NOT to vote for them.

 

And based on what THEY SAID they would do, they would have been a worse President for this country than GW would have been, IMO.

 

That is not saying I think GW is a good president or saying he is a bad president. They simply would have been worse.

 

If you cannot judge his performance based on positions what are you going to judge it on? I guess you cannot judge his performance on Iraq by his position that the US needs to "stay the course."

 

And how did he get to that position? After he aleady got the job. Positions are the main thing people look for of course, but how you react after you already have the job is a huge important factor. Things happen over the course of a 4 year, or an 8 year course, which can or should cause positions to change. How Al Gore would have handled 9/11 is a guess on ones part, and that includes Gore himself, because it is easier to say what your going to do from the sidelines, when your not in the game. You can't compare Bush as President to anyone in the last 6+ years, when it is him who has the job.

:thumb:

 

I think the hatred for President Bush/Republicans comes first (for whatever reason they have). THAT overarching bias then causes people to find the bad in any situation that concerns President Bush.

 

I have yet to see any of his opponents find ANYTHING good that he has done/has tried to do. That alone is a tipoff. If I start off disliking you, no matter what you do I will find some fault in it.

 

We all have seen the long list of political opponents that advocated getting rid of Saddam, starting BEFORE president Bush ever took office. Now that President Bush is in charge (& might get political credit if things work out) there is NO WAY that he will be allowed to succeed.

 

I find this type of reversal to be quite dishonest. There is no use in reasoning/arguing with people like this.

 

As a democrat I did not start our disliking Bush. That came from not only his decisions in office, but how he carries himself in office.

 

Likewise, I am not necessarily anti-republican. I think that Ronald Regan was a good man and president, though I was too young to vote at that time.

:thumb:

 

We all have seen the long list of political opponents that advocated getting rid of Saddam, starting BEFORE president Bush ever took office. Now that President Bush is in charge (& might get political credit if things work out) there is NO WAY that he will be allowed to succeed.

 

 

Are you implying that after six years of totally calling the shots with Republicans in control of both sides of Congress, the mess that Bush has made in Iraq and of U.S. foreign policy in general is anyone's fault other than his own? Please explain to me how he was not "allowed to succeed"? Heck, the Democrats now control Congress by a thin margin and they still have not been able to bend Iraq policy in a different direction. I'd say Bush was given a length of rope and managed to hang himself with it.

I wonder If the people who preach oil is worth dying for would have the guts to walk up to a grieving mother or father an say its ok he died for 10 gallons of gas. I guess its ok that 3500 are dead as long as they are not the 3500 that I know. That is truly sickening

I guess its ok that 3500 are dead as long as they are not the 3500 that I know. That is truly sickening

First of all, not a single person said such nonsense!

 

Secondly, I would have no problem going up to a grieving parent and telling them the TRUE reason their child died -- not the silly "10 gallons of gas" garbage. That would be lying to them and discrediting their sacrifice. Talk about sickening!!!:irked:

First of all, not a single person said such nonsense!

 

Secondly, I would have no problem going up to a grieving parent and telling them the TRUE reason their child died -- not the silly "10 gallons of gas" garbage. That would be lying to them and discrediting their sacrifice. Talk about sickening!!!:irked:

 

:thumb: It's sickening to think some people really believe that garbage.

I wonder If the people who preach oil is worth dying for would have the guts to walk up to a grieving mother or father an say its ok he died for 10 gallons of gas. I guess its ok that 3500 are dead as long as they are not the 3500 that I know. That is truly sickening

So, would it make you feel good to tell the grieving mother or father that their son died for nothing since it seems as that's where you are going. To me, nothing is more sickening than that.

I know they died for what they believe in and I have so much respect for them and their family. I'm honored just to live in the same country as these brave soldiers and their families. I wish those that claim they die for nothing would take the parents feelings into consideration; I suppose that's too much to ask.

The sad truth is no WMDs were found "NONE" that is the reason Bush gave for attacking Iraq please go back and listen to his speeches, I am a veteran I don't know how many of you are, I feel I have a right to speak, I will wave the flag, and say may prayers but, I will also admit when we (bush) messed up. and I don't bring abortion into this I am very pro-life hopefully by my threads you can see that

The sad truth is no WMDs were found "NONE" that is the reason Bush gave for attacking Iraq.

That doesn't even need to be debated, as the evidence of that dangerous possibility was there. That's beyond question.

 

Now, whether the process has been handled in the best way possible is another question. But to foolishly question the motivation for invading Iraq is just plain wrong. And to suggest it was some kind of selfish ploy at the expense of American blood, is beyond ludicrous.

Then why not invade North Korea we knew they had WMDs? We knew Iran was doing everything possible to get them?