To Republicans here, what's your opinion of Bush?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 12:12 AM GMT
    I'm sure there are some republicans here. I was wondering what does a Republican think of what Bush has been doing so far?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 12:35 AM GMT
    HE is the product of a very weak congress and a country that does not believe in a democracy anymore. King Bush I
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 2:34 AM GMT
    He's a lying, mentally deficient piss poor excuse for a leader of a nation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 3:40 AM GMT
    but are you Republican? it take a real Rep. man to speak honest about Bush
    .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 4:03 AM GMT
    ebl333 saidbut are you Republican? it take a real Rep. man to speak honest about Bush
    .


    If I voted, I would vote Republican. They don't try to take our guns away. An armed populace is the only defense against a tyrannical government, and that is EXACTLY why the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, because our founding fathers knew that unless a people have the power to make their will manifest, they are not citizens, but subjects.

    Everyone dismisses it, and it is the SECOND right to be written. That should be a clue as to the weight in which our founding fathers placed on this right. Everyone dismisses it as the bastion of nuts and wackos and fail to realize that all freedoms enjoyed were delivered by a muzzle flash against a tyrannical government.

    Everyone dismisses the infringement on the 'rights of wackos to have big guns', and never for an instant realize that it is an attack on the Constitution by the government. A right that exists as a protection FROM the government. You can't step on an ant if he's holding a nail.

    War of Independence? History anyone? Supposed to be a really nifty gizmo which teaches us.
    One interesting point is that the some of the first actions taken by Britain at the start of the War of Independence was to seize the guns of citizens and magazines. Why? ::waits for answer to rhetorical question::

    icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 4:09 AM GMT
    I support President Bush, he's been doing an excellent job. I'm 100% Fabulous Republican. McCain 08!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 4:12 AM GMT
    John43620 saidI support President Bush, he's been doing an excellent job. I'm 100% Fabulous Republican. McCain 08!


    Job notwithstanding, the man can't form a coherent sentence. It's embarrassing seeing him on TV trying to speak. It's painful.
  • vindog

    Posts: 1440

    Jun 05, 2008 4:16 AM GMT
    Buckwheet said[quote][cite]ebl333 said[/cite]but are you Republican? it take a real Rep. man to speak honest about Bush
    .


    If I voted, I would vote Republican. They don't try to take our guns away. An armed populace is the only defense against a tyrannical government, and that is EXACTLY why the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, because our founding fathers knew that unless a people have the power to make their will manifest, they are not citizens, but subjects.

    Everyone dismisses it, and it is the SECOND right to be written. That should be a clue as to the weight in which our founding fathers placed on this right. Everyone dismisses it as the bastion of nuts and wackos and fail to realize that all freedoms enjoyed were delivered by a muzzle flash against a tyrannical government.

    Everyone dismisses the infringement on the 'rights of wackos to have big guns', and never for an instant realize that it is an attack on the Constitution by the government. A right that exists as a protection FROM the government. You can't step on an ant if he's holding a nail.

    War of Independence? History anyone? Supposed to be a really nifty gizmo which teaches us.
    One interesting point is that the some of the first actions taken by Britain at the start of the War of Independence was to seize the guns of citizens and magazines. Why? ::waits for answer to rhetorical question::

    icon_biggrin.gif[/quote]

    While I agree with Republicans on this issue, I tend not to be a single issue voter, so I try and cast my vote based on weighing many issues, which are the most important to me and the direction I feel they may take the country. Many of the other things current Repubs stand for I DON'T agree with AT ALL. If they were TRUE Republicans and stood for small government and staying out of people's business I would vote for them more often....sadly many base their views on The Bible (pshaw).


    HOWEVER, on the gun issue...do you really think a few semi-automatic rifles will do anything against TANKS, LASERS, SONIC WEAPONRY, STAMs, JETS and.....wait, SATELLITE WEAPONRY?

    While I understand why the Founding Fathers wanted people to be well-armed, I doubt they really took into account all the BS our government has these days.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 4:26 AM GMT
    *sigh*

    Ah, the 2nd Amendment.

    An armed populace might defend against an equally-armed military. If that military wasn't better-trained. Since the civilian population has, at best, semi-automatic guns...and the military has M1 Abrams tanks, I think the notion of an armed populace fending off a military with guns is quaint at best.

    So let's dispense with the notion that the 2nd Amendment has any relevance whatsoever. No one on the planet can use their personal arsenal to fend off a military. The ship has sailed. It's the ugly, unpleasant truth.

    What's preventing totalitarianism in the United States is the rule of law, governed by human decency. If firepower were the linchpin to the argument, we'd have had barcodes on our foreheads a long time ago.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 4:30 AM GMT
    Buckwheet said[quote][cite]ebl333 said[/cite]but are you Republican? it take a real Rep. man to speak honest about Bush
    .


    If I voted, I would vote Republican. They don't try to take our guns away.
    icon_biggrin.gif[/quote]

    I dont' think democrat is taking able to take gun away anyway, it's too deep into american culture.

    but for the sake of gun, it's a big sacrifice to have Bush in the office
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 4:32 AM GMT
    John43620 saidI support President Bush, he's been doing an excellent job. I'm 100% Fabulous Republican. McCain 08!




    really? so you are ok with the war, the defecate, and the oil crisis?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 4:46 AM GMT
    Yes I'm OK with the war, Al Qaeda is getting their ass kicked and Saddam is gone. What's not to like?

    I'm quite regular, it's the high fiber diet.

    We wouldn't have an oil crisis if the congressional Democrats hadn't been blocking drilling in Alaska and Colorado and the construction of more refineries, for decades.

    President Bush is great.

    McCain 08!






  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 4:50 AM GMT
    John43620 saidYes I'm OK with the war, Al Qaeda is getting their ass kicked and Saddam is gone. What's not to like?

    I'm quite regular, it's the high fiber diet.

    We wouldn't have an oil crisis if the congressional Democrats hadn't been blocking drilling in Alaska and Colorado and the construction of more refineries, for decades.

    President Bush is great.

    McCain 08!








    cool, i've met other's who feel the same too. although I admit i voted for him, but I really feel he's not soficated to deal with middle east, and lacking control on budget and what oil company's doing. i regret voting for him. I feel i was mislead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 5:31 AM GMT
    JohnI'm quite regular, it's the high fiber diet.

    LOL! Whoosh.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jun 05, 2008 5:59 AM GMT
    I think Bush has been saddled with a very lame congress during an extremely difficult time in our country's history starting with 9/11, followed by Katrina, the mortgage mess, etc. I don't think it is fair at all that he's been the convenient scapegoat for so many, yet I am proud of him that in spite of the fact that he has been treated really poorly he's still managed to hold his head up high and forge ahead. History will be far kinder to him I suppose than the present.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 6:15 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI think Bush has been saddled with a very lame congress during an extremely difficult time in our country's history starting with 9/11, followed by Katrina, the mortgage mess, etc. I don't think it is fair at all that he's been the convenient scapegoat for so many, yet I am proud of him that in spite of the fact that he has been treated really poorly he's still managed to hold his head up high and forge ahead. History will be far kinder to him I suppose than the present.



    Couldn't have said it better. I'm a Democrat who voted for Bush, twice. Not sure for whom I'll vote for this time around, but Bush has done a good job given the circumstances you mentioned.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 6:31 AM GMT
    President Bush has been an excellent leader on many fronts, and I think he deserves far more credit than he has received.

    The one "big" issue that I differ with him on is illegal immigration. He (with McCain/Kennedy/others) supported that disaster of an immigration bill recently that would have given permanent legal status to millions of illegal immigrants. It was a HUGE mistake, and it greatly hurt opinion toward Bush (and McCain) among many in the GOP.

    Aside from that, we've seen strong leadership from Bush on national defense, education, economic policies, foreign policy, and many social policies, among other areas...

    Bush is a good man, and has done a good job in office, overall. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 6:36 AM GMT
    any of you GODDAMNED IDIOTS WHO SUPPORT BUSH ARE THE BLOODY SHIT AND SCUM OF THE EARTH!!!!icon_evil.gif.....AND JOHN GO DO THE WORLD A FAVOR AND GET AIDS AND CANCER YOU USELESS BLOODTHIRSTY, MURDEROUS MAGGOT!!!icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 8:17 AM GMT
    wwanderlust said*sigh*

    Ah, the 2nd Amendment.

    An armed populace might defend against an equally-armed military. If that military wasn't better-trained. Since the civilian population has, at best, semi-automatic guns...and the military has M1 Abrams tanks, I think the notion of an armed populace fending off a military with guns is quaint at best.

    So let's dispense with the notion that the 2nd Amendment has any relevance whatsoever. No one on the planet can use their personal arsenal to fend off a military. The ship has sailed. It's the ugly, unpleasant truth.

    What's preventing totalitarianism in the United States is the rule of law, governed by human decency. If firepower were the linchpin to the argument, we'd have had barcodes on our foreheads a long time ago.


    1: I didn't say Military, I said governments. There is a difference.
    2: You will never see large scale U.S. military - U.S. civilian conflicts in this country. You will not find a group of U.S. soldiers to turn on U.S. citizens; It's already been probed.
    3: Though this point is irrelevant to my original post, it bears mentioning: Large military bodies are particularly vulnerable to small mobile groups. History much?
    4: Quite true! The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is irrelevant. While we're disposing of nuisances let us, with our considerable Knowledge, dispense of some of these other heretofore irrelevant amendments!
    5: The rule of law is worthless without the promise of force. That's why police officers have AR15's in their trunks, shotguns in their cabs, and pistols on their belts.
    6: Human decency isn't worth a plugged nickel against an armed foe. It's the ugly, unpleasant truth.
    7: Tyrannical governments can not survive in a country with an armed populace. History shows that governments will always disarm a populace before attempting subjugating them.

    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

    --Adolph Hitler

    Hitler's Secret Conversations, trans. Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens (New York: Signet Books, 1961), 403.

    And yeah, Hitler disarmed the Jews and passed 'benign' gun control laws so he could get on his with murders unimpeded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 8:28 AM GMT
    Okay, whew, that was a short list of responders. And sorry for sonu78's outburst...he escaped his cage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 8:40 AM GMT
    atlnvmasc said
    HOWEVER, on the gun issue...do you really think a few semi-automatic rifles will do anything against TANKS, LASERS, SONIC WEAPONRY, STAMs, JETS and.....wait, SATELLITE WEAPONRY?


    No, I don't.

    This is a disservice to the men and women who serve to defend the Constitution and a people. Our military is not ranked with mindless conscripts who must serve or die. They serve a people, an oath, an ideal, and the comrade beside them, and they are not about to run over Grandmother's house.

    If I was to seek a weak willed soul, I would not look to the Marines, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Coast Guard.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 12:53 PM GMT
    A lame Congress?

    Until the 2004 election, Bush had an absolute majority in the Congress and they did everything he told them to do.

    Even with a slim majority of Democrats now in Congress, he gets most everything he wants.

    How exactly has Congress impeded Bush?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 1:08 PM GMT
    Actually to be clear, Bush had a clear majority in Congress until 2006.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2008 1:23 PM GMT
    And then there's his administration's "science" (from the NY Times):

    June 4, 2008
    Editorial
    The Science of Denial

    The Bush administration has worked overtime to manipulate or conceal scientific evidence — and muzzled at least one prominent scientist — to justify its failure to address climate change.

    Its motives were transparent: the less people understood about the causes and consequences of global warming, the less they were likely to demand action from their leaders. And its strategy has been far too successful. Seven years later, Congress is only beginning to confront the challenge of global warming.

    The last week has brought further confirmation of the administration’s cynicism. An internal investigation by NASA’s inspector general concluded that political appointees in the agency’s public affairs office had tried to restrict reporters’ access to its leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen. He has warned about climate change for 20 years and has openly criticized the administration’s refusal to tackle the issue head-on.

    More broadly, the investigation said that politics played a heavy role in the office and that it had presented information about global warming “in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate-change science made available to the general public.”

    Meanwhile, the administration finally agreed, under duress, to release a Congressionally mandated report on the effects of climate change on various regions of the United States. Some of the report’s predictions, like the inevitable loss of coastal areas to rising seas, were not new. Others were, including warnings of a potential increase in various food- and water-borne viruses.

    What was most noteworthy about the latter report was that it made it to the light of day. A 1990 law requires the president to give Congress every four years its best assessment of the likely effects of climate change. The last such assessment was undertaken by President Clinton and published in 2000. Mr. Bush not only missed the 2004 deadline but allowed the entire information-gathering process to wither. Only a court order handed down last August in response to a lawsuit by public interest groups forced him to deliver this month.

    This administration long ago secured a special place in history for bending science to its political ends. One costly result is that this nation has lost seven years in a struggle in which time is not on anyone’s side.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jun 05, 2008 2:08 PM GMT
    sonu78 saidany of you GODDAMNED IDIOTS WHO SUPPORT BUSH ARE THE BLOODY SHIT AND SCUM OF THE EARTH!!!!icon_evil.gif.....AND JOHN GO DO THE WORLD A FAVOR AND GET AIDS AND CANCER YOU USELESS BLOODTHIRSTY, MURDEROUS MAGGOT!!!icon_evil.gif



    And WHO are you...Arianna Huffington? icon_rolleyes.gif Ya know, you read stuff like what you just posted and it pretty much speaks for itself. Very sad.