Ashamed of how I voted

[Ben]

I could have a problem with Bush falling off his bike if he:

1) Jumped into a limo immediately after falling off while leaving his bike to be picked up by lackeys;

or

2) Blamed his falling off the bike on a Secret Service agent.

[K Frame]

"Bush can talk, he just doesn't use five dollar words that a lot of other people to make themselves seem smarter than they really are."

And Charby wins the prize for cutting right to the heart of the matter.

Reagan took some heat early in his first term because he was also too folksy for some people.

[crt360]

I've got no problem with him falling off his bike.  I've fallen off of mine.

I think he's probably a nice guy, but I disagree with him on a number of issues.

I also get really tired of hearing him say basically the same thing each time he speaks, regardless of the event.  "Mericans must have resolve."  "So-and-so is a leader with great resolve."  "This team showed resolve."  "With great resolve we worked with our allies who showed resolve."  What's up with using the word "resolve" in every other sentence?  Am I the only one who feels like sending him a cheap little pocket dictionary and thesaurus?

[stevelyn]

Ashamed of how I voted.

Yes, I'm ashamed of how you voted too.

[Ron]

I don't regret for one second voting for President Bush.

Now that the republicans have majorities in the congress/senate and a president in office at the same time, I better see some good judicial appointments to the supreme court.

This is the only reason I voted straight republican since President Clintons second run.

Reigning in the courts is the most important issue of the day domestically.

After 9/11 voting libertarian to make myself feel superior wasn't an option.

[grampster]

I think the time for talk is over as far as the Islamo-fascists are concerned.  They use the freedom we have, that they would destroy, to mock us and promote their terror in order to bring us down.  All I heard today was politicians and "news" media be polite and be politically correct, wringing their hands and talking.  Windbags and girly men (Sorry Barbara)  Hell, I never even heard the word Islamo-fascist, or Wahabbist.  NBC was still saying the "didn't know who did this" after the murderous slime announced hours before not only that they did it, but that they actually told the world they were going to a couple weeks ago, and Italy and Denmark (iirc) were next, for God's sake.  (Remember May 23 in London when the cowardly bastards chanted Kill Bush, Kill Blair, Death to America, Death to Britain, Nuke the Pentagon and the Brit Bobbies stood around and watched)
I have a suggestion for the "leadership" of the West.  Announce tomorrow that as far as the Islamo-fascist Wahabbi sect, we intend to scourge them with their own whip; Islamic Law applied in the fashion they apply it.  That means no free speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom to come and go, no nothing except the freedom for us to kill them.
I'm sorry if I sound bloodthirsty, but war is a dirty business that is engaged in to destoy your opponent; unequivicaly.  The Japanese fascists were fanatics as well.  We firebombed Tokyo and nuked them twice and they surrendered and de-deified the Emporer to boot.  I am not suggesting nukes, but we should pick a few key places throughout the Islamo-fascist neighborhood and level them and continue to level them till they quit!  If Islamo-fascist terrorists have no borders, then we should give them their wish, no borders.  Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, S. Arabia: Give em up or we'll wreck where they are.  In the end its us or them and there will always be the unfortunates in the middle.
End of Rant
PS  Just Googled Ron Paul.  I stand corrected.

[Standing Wolf]

Bush is just another Calvin Coolidge in a time that requires a Thomas Jefferson.

I voted for him once, by the way, but voted Libertarian in 2004: I have to face the man in the mirror.

[Bemidjiblade]

HeylookI'mtakingoutthespacessothatitwillseemlikeI'mtalkingveryfastsoImustbesmart.
IguesswhenIactuallyspeaktopeopleinamannertheyunderstandmyIQdipsdownbelow170somethingeh?
*Smacks himself*

If oratory speed is the criterion you use to estimate another human's intelligence, then perhaps you'd prefer Hitler as world leader?  Obviously smarter and more capable.  Just watch a recording of his speeches.

Also, I believe we must begin screening our leaders for any failings of motor coordination subsequent to the completion of adolescence as that must be an indication of sustandard reasoning and judgement abilites.

[TarpleyG]

Standing ovation grampster.

However, doing what you propose requires dedication and fervor much like we saw at the start of our involvement in WWII and I just don't think it's there.  You can't get people off their fat ass long enough to vote let alone go wage a war.  I seriously considered re-upping in the Corps shortly after 9/11 but my wife was so freaked out about the idea and there is no way we could have afforded for me to do that, I didn't do it.  It's been a while since I was in and if I could re-join with a rank commensurate with my world experience and perform some job function that I can physically do, I'd probably do it.  Problem is the Marine Corps doesn't want a late-thirty-something guy with a chronic back problem and high blood pressure, even doing a desk job that I already do.

Now that we are way off topic I'll try and bring it back some.  Someone made a comment about how Bush handled the after-wreck incident.  He was sincerely concerned about the cop he plowed into and did not blame him like some other creature did on a snow covered ski slope somewhere a while back.  I think the man is genuine.  Do I agree with him on everything?  No, like I said before.  The border situation really pisses me off.  He pissed me off way back when with the "no child left behind" nonsense.  Other stuff but you get the idea.

Greg

[mfree]

Hrmm... anyone who knows me knows that I can whip $25 words out like cotton candy, but my trouble is that half the time the thought I'm expressing has run it's course and I'm on a new one before the words are done leaving my mouth. So I talk slowly, deliberately, and simply, or I babble. Sometimes I let the ingrained southern drawl come out fairly thickly. (I can say "nuclear" properly though). Am I stupid, as well?

I didn't even vote for the current president and I find myself defending him just because most of the time the allegory attacks upon the man's intelligence are completely unfounded... the work of someone having an emotional reaction versus using their BRAIN.

[Sean Smith]

Wow, alot of misdirection on the topic of Bush's speaking ability (or more accurately, lack thereof).  Talk about a case of "Methinks thou doth protest too much"!

I speak with a southern drawl so I must have a low IQ too.

For one thing, nobody attacked Southern accents, now did they?  Go back and read the topic again, y'all.  Yet everyone leaps to the defense of the (uninsulted) Southern honor.  Funny thing, that.  The South has, of course, produced tremendous orators.

Bush can talk, he just doesn't use five dollar words that a lot of other people to make themselves seem smarter than they really are.

If oratory speed is the criterion you use to estimate another human's intelligence, then perhaps you'd prefer Hitler as world leader?

And of course, nobody criticized Bush for not using bigger words or talking faster, now did they?  And of course, somebody just HAS to introduce Hitler into the mix, now don't they?  Doing so is the classic sign that somebody has no argument, and has chosen to stink up the place as a substitute.

Is it going to far to say that ignorance of the English language, and/or an inability to use it, is not a virtue in a president?

Am I stupid, as well?

Another thing:  nobody called anybody posting here a moron.  So why FABRICATE a personal attack to get offended over where none existed?  

More silly "thinking," if you criticize Bush's poor communication skills, you automatically must want CARTER back in the White House.  Which is funny, since I don't recall that he was much of a communicator himself.  Oh noes, did I insult Southerners by saying THAT?  

Bush isn't folksy, he is just a poor speaker.  Alot of folksy folks are excellent speakers.  And comparing him to Reagan is extremely silly; even Reagan's ENEMIES conceded that he was a good speaker.

[Zundfolge]

I never voted for Bush, but I did vote against Al "I invented the internet" Gore and John "I made Jane Fonda look patriotic" Kerry.

Just so happened that Bush's name was the only one in the box that had a chance of preventing either of those pariahs from living at 1600 Penn. Ave.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

George can't ride a bike now either.

Oh get off it.  I've fallen off a bike, it doesn't make me a moron.  Criticize him for his politics, not something childish like falling off a bike.

[K Frame]

"Is it going to far to say that ignorance of the English language, and/or an inability to use it, is not a virtue in a president?"

You're still grasping to find a point, and not being very successful at it. You said you wanted a president who could TALK (your word).

As I pointed out, Bush talks.

More importantly, he COMMUNICATES fairly well.


Perhaps, though, you should be a bit more direct in what you're actually trying to say. What DO you want?

Are you referring to Bush's oratorical miscues?

Are you referring to him mispronouncing the word nuclear?

Maybe we'll be a bit further along if we can figure out what you want.

[charby]

I give up for sake of a troll attack

[Monkeyleg]

sm, just for the record, Gerald Ford was one of the most athletic presidents we've had. An accomplished football player, and more.

When people think of presidents and golf, most think of Eisenhower. However, the best golfer we've had as president was FDR. He was on the brink of going pro before he was stricken with polio.

As for Bush: oh, yeah. He's dumb. He campaigned in 2000 on a promise of a $1.6 trillion tax cut that everyone said would never happen, and the Democrats said "not in our lifetime." He got, what, $1.3 trillion? Pretty dumb.

During the 2004 campaign, he promised to overhaul Social Security. Everyone said it would never happen and, again, the Democrats said no. Now the discussion isn't whether or not we should overhaul the system, it's how. Even if Bush doesn't get the private accounts as he wants them, he still wins. Dumb?

After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1994, Clinton basically did nothing.

After the 2001 attack, Bush said we're invading Afghanistan. "Impossible," said the press. "Another Viet Nam." "The Soviets failed, and so will we."

Hmmm. The Karzai government seems to be doing fairly well in a short period of time.

Before the Iraq invasion, the press--and some former military folks--were talking about 25% US casualty rates in Baghdad. We've lost 1700+ brave men and women over the last two years, and my thoughts and prayers go out to their families. But, considering that we invaded the most heavily-armed Middle Eastern country, one that had the best-trained troops and tanks galore, that's a low casualty rate. In one day of fighting in the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, the US lost 5,000 troops.

Detractors said it was all about oil. Really? Then why is oil at $58+ a barrel?

Detractors said it was a "gimme" to Halliburton, the most qualified company to do the job, and one that came in under budget and ahead of schedule.

Detractors said that the Iraqi people would never embrace democracy, as though they were some sort of alien race with green skin and six eyes.

When was the last time anyone here went to vote with terrorists threatening to kill you if you did? Iraq had a higher percentage of voter turnout than we've seen in the US in decades.

Detractors said the Middle East would be inflamed, and that every country would turn against us.

I guess that's why Ghadifi decided to surrender his WMD's, and the Saudi's are experimenting with free elections, and the Palestinians have elected a leader who will actually try to control the jihadists while he talks with the Israeli's.

Several years from now, we'll be able to judge the wisdom of Bush going into Iraq. My guess is that we'll find a much better environment in the Middle East.

[telewinz]

OK,  Bush fans.  Please list George's accomplishments.  He's had a Republican majority in congress for years so I should be impressed.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

To be fair we will compare the Mighty George's "victories" against others.

BTW: starting a war is not considered a "Great" accomplishment but winning it is.  WW2 took the US (FDR) about 45 months to obtain an UNCONDITIONAL surrender from first & 2nd world countries.  Why do I feel some will say this is an "unfair" comparison?  Maybe we should use "faith based warfare", just talk the problem away.  George is a joke.

[telewinz]

CNN) -- The number of Americans disapproving of President Bush's job performance
has risen to the highest level of his presidency, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point

By E&P Staff

Published: April 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET updated 7:00 PM

Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president at this point in his second term,
according to Gallup polls going back to World War II.

there's broad skepticism on Bush's policies and progress in Iraq, which the president is to address in a speech tonight. Nearly two-thirds say the United States has gotten bogged down there. Nearly six in 10 say the administration lacks a clear plan. And just 38 percent see significant U.S. progress toward establishing a democratic government.

While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is not nearly as popular as her predecessor,
Colin Powell, she is the only cabinet member currently enjoying positive ratings  by 54 to 39 percent.

Vice President Dick Cheneys ratings are currently 37 percent positive, 60 percent negative,
down sharply from 45 percent positive, 52 percent negative in February.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfelds ratings are 42 percent positive,
 56 percent negative, identical to his February ratings.

Please explain to me again why Bush is ANYTHING besides a poor leader and President?

[Guest]

1.) Signed McCain-Feingold.
2.) Signed the Patriot Act.
3.) Forgot that tax cuts need to be equalled out with spending cuts.
4.) Supports holding US Citizens without trial or contacts.
5.) Attacked Iraq. I'm all for supporting our troops now that we're there, but I still haven't figured out what he was thinking..we're unsuccessfully playing Where's Waldo with Bin Laden and the Islamic Terrorist Boy Scout troop and Mr. President attacks a secular Middle Eastern Country with no (at the time) links to Al Queda..allegedly to spread democracy. How about spreading a little of that Democracy to North Korea, who is actually threatening us, preferably via a preemptive nuclear strike. If the UN is going to issue resolutions against us, let's make it for something worth while.
6.) Our Southern border. Enough said.
7.) Signed a law banning guns that don't exist.
8.) Opposed a law giving pilots the right to defend themselves.

As far as his speaking abilities, I don't care how he talks, but I'd be happy if I never heard him say Patriot or Evil-Doers agan for the rest of my life.

[Ron]

And what is the VIABLE alternative that you two (tele. & Barb.) propose?

I am talking about in the real world,  not the ideasphere.  

Other than protest votes for UNVIABLE candidates what are our options?

I am not going to throw away my vote(s) in protest against the statists and let the greater of the two evils win.

Having a constitutional libertarian minded candidate who could win would be great but he/she isn't out there!

Either the libertarians have to get a grassroots program together and start winning elections or there needs to be a grass roots coup in the republican party to start fielding freedom minded candidates.

Until then I will not vote for someone so I can be smug and better than thou because I voted "my conscience".

[stevelyn]

I am not going to throw away my vote(s) in protest against the statists and let the greater of two evils win.

Having a constitutional libertarian minded candidate who could win would be great, but he/she isn't out there.

Well, they're certainly not going to win if everyone is afraid to vote for them because of an addiction to the two-peas-in-a-pod party that's worse than that of a crackhead.

Try voting for the candidate that delivers the message you agree with rather than voting for party loyalty or the lesser evil.

[telewinz]

Bush at the beginning had a vision, a plan.  All he has left is just a stubborn hold on some idealistic Sunday School view of the World.  He hasn't a clue.  He is a confused man living in a complex World.  America is in worst shape with George Bush as President, how long would a CEO last with a performance like George's?  A high school principal?  A village mayor?  A dog catcher?  Some will complain endlessly about an overbearing government yet grasp the pant leg of the mediocre man that fosters that government.  Iraq and Afghanistan were not forced on Bush, he sought them out.  His "friends" in the oil industry have not been very friendly.  Our enemies do not tremble but seek us out.  George is an American embarrassment and a white (Republican) elephant.

[Guest]

I'm sorry you think its smug..its really, really not. If anything its just a sense of frustration. I voted for Bush the first time. I know Kerry would have been more dangerous to the 2nd Amendment..but I so many times see us ignoring the rest of the Bill of Rights as if the 2nd is the Holy Grail of Freedom..it's important, but its not freedom itself. I'm not willing to be able to tote around a gun but not be able to speak my mind about my government, or be held without charges or have my home searched without cause, etc. When I didn't vote for Bush, honestly, it was because I didn't see him as less of a threat than Kerry..I didn't see him as a lesser evil, just a different evil.

[Ron]

Try voting for the candidate that delivers the message you agree with rather than voting for party loyalty or the lesser evil.

If we all did that then we would be faced with the prospect of President Kerry appointing up to three SC justices.  

I'm sorry you think its smug..its really, really not. If anything its just a sense of frustration

I am with you,  very frustrated.  The outright fear of the Dems getting to oppoint SC judges and their  incompetence when it comes to standing up for the US on the world stage overcame my frustration.

Iraq and Afghanistan were not forced on Bush, he sought them out.

Our enemies in Afghanistan did not seek us out?  

America is in worst shape with George Bush as President

Worse shape than what?  If Kerry was president?

[Ron]

Until then I will not vote for someone so I can be smug and better than thou because I voted "my conscience".

I say this as someone who has voted libertarian in the past.  There may be some unconscious projection taking place in this statement, LoL.