George W. Bush - Positive Comments ONLY





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: George W. Bush - Positive Comments ONLY
By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 06:57 am: Edit

In this thread, please discuss ONLY positive things about George W. Bush and why he would make a good president---no negative things. Please do NOT discuss or even mention John Kerry or Ralph Nader.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 10:38 am: Edit

Wow...why am I not surprised which thread went negative first? That's the problem with a polarized nation, everyone's too damn bitter and, to steal my own quote, too damn narrowminded to think that maybe, just maybe the other side has some good qualities.

But...anywho...to finish off my positive comments about each candidate:

GW is a very likable guy, he seems like someone you could go down to the bar and shoot the **** with. He's getting more politicized (like every politician) as he spends more time in Washington, although he is still committed to his beliefs. Plus the economy is going up, it has recovered, and that is always good no matter who the President is (one reason I could somewhat like Clinton).

Also, Bush has stood up to the most bitter critics ever in the most polarized nation ever, I respect that because I would have "gone off" so long ago, although right now he's not helping himself.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Immediately after 9-11, Bush did a great job. He went into office with a bad economy and had barely been there for six months when 9-11 happened, but he managed to respond well.

While there is a lot about GW's presidency that I do not like, I do admire him for attempting to handle a tough economy that was worsened by 9-11, for having a great Cabinet, and for having more minorities on his Cabinet than any previous president.

Laura, IMO, is a class act.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 02:56 pm: Edit

bush responded well to 9-11 but no one really notices it because it was in the shadow of another man. The real superstar was Giuliani.

By Demingy (Demingy) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Televelis, I agree. I'd like to start off by saying that I'm not a Bush supporter, but I second what Ariesathena said. Bush did handle things well around 9/11. I can't imagine how anyone else could have reacted and I was impressed with how he brought everyone together. I also appreciate a good deal of his cabinet and am impressed with the number of minorities that he has employed as top advisors.

Now please, for those who don't truly have anything positive to say, please just don't say anything at all (didn't your mothers ever teach you that?).

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit

smartest decision bush ever made: appointing colin powell

best asset bush has: his boldness (not being afraid to be aggressive)

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:03 am: Edit

Thanks, Demingy!

Also, my thanks to MorganTruce, for putting these threads together. Too often, political discussions involve "trashing" another party - hopefully, these will give CCers the opportunity to better understand the other side.

By Calkidd (Calkidd) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:17 am: Edit

Although I'd say I disagree with most of what comes out of Bush's administration, I do respect the fact that - right or wrong - when he believes that there is a danger to our nation that merits some kind of violent action (Afghanistan, Iraq) he lets us know that the conflict will take place and he sends in troops. Whether or not I agree with the justification, this is a thousand times better than trying to fence with our purported enemies through third parties (like Osama Bin Laden, whom the CIA armed and trained to fight against the USSR, right-wing dictators in South America) that historically have turned against us.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:28 am: Edit

Lots of bitterness here. Sad, but interesting.

I am not a fan of Bush and certainly won't be voting for him in November, but he has done a few things right:

1) Pulling out of Kyoto. This treaty was a bunch of crap. Something needs to be done to try to stem global warming (if that is at all possible), but Kyoto was nothing but a European attempt to gain global competitiveness by hurting America's economy.

2) Ended dividend taxes. So many people are tragically misinformed about this. It's not a tax break for the rich; the truly rich don't care so much about dividends as do middle class stockholders. Stocks that provide a steady source of income to the holder via dividends is the only way that many middle to lower class Americans can afford to invest.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 01:21 am: Edit

Sad how the anti-bush people lack the respect that we gave them for their thread. Come on guys, you can disagree with out acting like babies.

1. Economy/Tax cuts. Our nation was in a reccesion and after the tax cuts, almost all economic indicators have improved and many are at their best levels for a while.
-unemployment is at what it was during the tech boom of the mid 90s, and it seems as if hundreds of thousands of jobs are being created month after month.
-home ownership is at record levels
-inflation is low even though interest rates are low
-disposable income is up
-stock markets are doing well
-almost all economists including greenspan say we are in a strong sustained recovery
-industrial output and productivity is going up at the fastest pace in 3 decades.
Basicly, the economy is doing excellent.

Kyoto: Bush stood up to al gore and world critism (sounds familiar) and did not sign this ridiculous agreement that was unfair to the US. It would subject us to the same standards as unindustrialized nations and would of cost billions a year and slowed our economy.


Foreign Policy: Bush took a no nonsense courageous stance against terrorists, terrorist supporters, and terrorizing dictators.
-Afganastan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. The taliban has been elimiated and the terrorist cells have been severly damaged and are on the run. It is much harder for them to plan large scale terrorist attacks.

-Most likly the worst dictator of the last half a century is in a jail cell. Someone who committed genocide in the 300,000-1,000,000 range, who threatened neigbors, who attacked neighbors and allies, who was the first to use chemical weapons in large scale since ww1, who used wmds against his own people, who was attempting to make more wmds, who defied the UN multiple times, who turned away and played games with inspectors, who attempted to murder our President, who constantly violated the terms of his cease fire, who had contacts with al quaida, who was planning attacks on the US according to Russia, and who tortured people regularly by cutting of tounges, pouring gasoline down their throats and lighting them on fire, or ripping out eyeballs...

-Iraq, if successful in the transition to a soverign democratic government, will be one of the biggest successes since the defeat of hitler and the democratization of the former ussr. The possible results are amazing. It would be the first arab democracy and would put pressure on many of the other tyrants in the region to reform. We have already seen this. Libya, who was a staunch anti-us foe who committed terrorist attacks like the lockerbee hijacking, suddenly agreed to trying to normalize relations with the US and Europe and more importantly, agreed to stop its nuclear weapons program and allow full UN inspections. I guess they saw what would happen if they did not.

-Bush, while not being the most intelligent president, I believe has good judgment, something I believe the most important asset for a president. He is also a lot more likeable a personality that Kerry, who seems so haughty and stiff and trys to make each line in speeches overly dramatic and "kennedyesque".

By Eliel (Eliel) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 04:04 am: Edit

Bush wont win the 2004 vote...why?...uhm, its obvious; he SUCKS!!!
Go Kerry!!!!!

Thank you for your comments and goodbye!

By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 05:21 am: Edit

Even though Hitler was a pretty evil guy, you have to admire his capabilities. I probably wouldn't ever try to conquer the world like Hitler, but if I tried, I don't think I would have gotten as far as he did. On a scale of 1 to 10, Hitler would probably get a 0.7 or something for morality, but as far as talent and ability go, he was a perfect 10.

By Ares15 (Ares15) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 05:27 am: Edit

Thank you for your comments and goodbye!

By Gottagetout (Gottagetout) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 05:32 am: Edit

Good, I'm glad that you understand my point and your revised statement is much more understandable now.

I am sorry about the harsh response. I have very little tolerance for those that disrespect other's wishes (especially during discussions).

About Hitler, he was quite charismatic and a brilliant leader.

We should really get back to Bush pros, though.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 06:26 am: Edit

I love Bush.
As a person: he seems to be very genuine, very un-elitist and not overly obsessed with the game of politics, very gentle-natured, friendly, and filled with a true faith in God.

Whether you dislike him or not, u know ur getting the real deal. He is himself, and what u see is what you get. I really do think personality and character counts. Especially during times like 9/11, i personally found his spirit and attitude comforting.

As a leader: everything Jlq3d3 pretty much covers how I feel as well. I'll just copy paste that post:
Sad how the anti-bush people lack the respect that we gave them for their thread. Come on guys, you can disagree with out acting like babies.

1. Economy/Tax cuts. Our nation was in a reccesion and after the tax cuts, almost all economic indicators have improved and many are at their best levels for a while.
-unemployment is at what it was during the tech boom of the mid 90s, and it seems as if hundreds of thousands of jobs are being created month after month.
-home ownership is at record levels
-inflation is low even though interest rates are low
-disposable income is up
-stock markets are doing well
-almost all economists including greenspan say we are in a strong sustained recovery
-industrial output and productivity is going up at the fastest pace in 3 decades.
Basicly, the economy is doing excellent.

Kyoto: Bush stood up to al gore and world critism (sounds familiar) and did not sign this ridiculous agreement that was unfair to the US. It would subject us to the same standards as unindustrialized nations and would of cost billions a year and slowed our economy.


Foreign Policy: Bush took a no nonsense courageous stance against terrorists, terrorist supporters, and terrorizing dictators.
-Afganastan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. The taliban has been elimiated and the terrorist cells have been severly damaged and are on the run. It is much harder for them to plan large scale terrorist attacks.

-Most likly the worst dictator of the last half a century is in a jail cell. Someone who committed genocide in the 300,000-1,000,000 range, who threatened neigbors, who attacked neighbors and allies, who was the first to use chemical weapons in large scale since ww1, who used wmds against his own people, who was attempting to make more wmds, who defied the UN multiple times, who turned away and played games with inspectors, who attempted to murder our President, who constantly violated the terms of his cease fire, who had contacts with al quaida, who was planning attacks on the US according to Russia, and who tortured people regularly by cutting of tounges, pouring gasoline down their throats and lighting them on fire, or ripping out eyeballs...

-Iraq, if successful in the transition to a soverign democratic government, will be one of the biggest successes since the defeat of hitler and the democratization of the former ussr. The possible results are amazing. It would be the first arab democracy and would put pressure on many of the other tyrants in the region to reform. We have already seen this. Libya, who was a staunch anti-us foe who committed terrorist attacks like the lockerbee hijacking, suddenly agreed to trying to normalize relations with the US and Europe and more importantly, agreed to stop its nuclear weapons program and allow full UN inspections. I guess they saw what would happen if they did not.

-Bush, while not being the most intelligent president, I believe has good judgment, something I believe the most important asset for a president. He is also a lot more likeable a personality that Kerry, who seems so haughty and stiff and trys to make each line in speeches overly dramatic and "kennedyesque".

By Acennace (Acennace) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 06:54 am: Edit

1. Bush is not a laissez-faire kind of leader. He actually does something for his people. He doesn't turn a blind eye.
2. I admire Bush's ability to turn US economy from the recession after 9/11 to a more stable economy like today.

BTW, do you think ppl in Florida will vote Mickey Mouse again this year?

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:38 am: Edit

GW is a very likable guy, he seems like someone you could go down to the bar and shoot the **** with.

Agreed.

By Cheezeit08 (Cheezeit08) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Jlq3d3:
Iraq WILL NEVER BE successful. You cannot change a country that has historically been a dictatorship as far as anyone can remember into a democracy overnight. It's just not possible. Bush has only created a bigger mess, and I feel sorry for Kerry because if he's elected, he will have to clean it all up. Saddam was not the sole problem with Iraq...there are many people there that are not in the democratic mindset. As a result, there's much retaliation and American soldiers are dying daily. Bush does not know what he's doing, which clearly explains why he didn't get U.N. support. I don't see how ANYONE can admire his foreign policy. Enough said.

By Seleucus26 (Seleucus26) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit

new thread with postive comments only - can we get some moderators in here?

Yes, all posters who have problems following the simplest of requests can look for another board. Post anything contrary to the OP request and you will be banned immediately.
Moderator Trinity

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

What is this??? I just visited the Nader and Kerry threads and everything is peachy keen in there. Leave Bush alone! This is obviously not the place to bash him! Can't you guys control your irrational emotions long enough to not spew your vitriol in here? Christ. Try to keep a little bit of credit for your side and stop being negative in here.

I adore and admire Bush. I think he is a fantastic leader. At this stage, I just feel that Bush should stay in office, because bringing someone else into what's he's accomplished would break up any sort of plan of action we have right now.

Plus, Bush has a way about him, of just relaxing people with his presence.

By Waffle (Waffle) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit

The only thing that I can think of is that he's pro-Israel, which is in my interests. I don't know how Kerry has identified himself with that. Other than that, I can't think of anything else good about him.

By Parentofteen (Parentofteen) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Bush is a God-fearing, moral leader who acts based on what he feels is best for our nation. He has the good sense to consult others with more knowledge and experience than he with great frequency. He has my trust.

By Allena (Allena) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 04:32 pm: Edit

I believe that Bush has done a good job with the war in Iraq. I've posted before that he was in a situation that no matter what he had done, people would have been irrate over it.

He's been a good leader in a time when our country has needed one. I don't think anybody can debate that he has had one of the most complicated terms in recent history.

Is he perfect? No, not by a long shot. He has made mistakes. I don't agree with everything he has done. However I believe that he is a truly good person, and has done a good job as our president. Unlike a lot of people, I'll be more then happy to trust this nation to the man for another 4 years.

By Sheeprun (Sheeprun) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 06:24 pm: Edit

I deleted all the negative comments and the comments about the negative comments. I hate editing a topic so roughly---now it hardly makes sense.

Remember what your mother told you: "If you can"t say something nice about someone, say nothng at all."

I think Barney Bush is a cute little dog...

<moderator>

By Chavi (Chavi) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 06:33 pm: Edit

I was wondering if there were any rational, thinking conservative types on this discussion board. I have been amazed at the venomous liberalism I have encountered even on non-political threads. Bush will go down as one of our greatest presidents, right up there with Reagan. So few Presidents have shown this level of leadership. He has stuck to his guns over and over again, and the liberals criticize him for being stubborn. What's the point of having principles if you don't stick to them? If we don't re-elect him this fall, I fear our country will get what it deserves. And any idiot that thinks he's out to fill up his wallet leaves me wondering what planet he's living on. If Bush was simply out to get rich (or get his friends rich) he would first have to be concerned about getting re-elected. He wouldn't have taken any risks, and he would vacillate on controversial issues and try to play both sides. That would fairly describe Clinton. Seems to me he's the one getting rich these days, what with his and Hillary's books, their speaking fees, their cronyism, etc. Bush has appointed a lot of good people to office whom he's never known or had political ties to. He's taken bold leadership in the Middle East (and only after 9/11, not before, for those that claim he was out to take over all the oil from day one), he's taken unpopular stances on embryonic stem cell research and appointing pro-life, conservative federal judges. He has the vision thing, man. He's sees something needs to be done about the Middle East in the name of world peace, instead of just sitting on his hands like some liberals would've had him do. Even if Irag doesn't hold together, I still think some valuable seeds have been planted there that may someday lead to lasting stability. He takes everybody's flak and keeps on ticking. I say that's great courage and leadership. He also knows how to get things done efficiently, by Washington standards. If he see a problem, he fixes it, or appoints someone who can. One final thing, Dick Cheney is one of the greatest Vice-Presidents we've ever had. Let's not overlook him. I'm glad there are at least a few college parents here whose minds aren't clouded by irrational hatred.

By Cornellian (Cornellian) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 06:54 pm: Edit

So Ares15 was banned after he clarified his initial statement and reached an accord with the very person that he upset?

"Good, I'm glad that you understand my point and your revised statement is much more understandable now."

It's interesting that he brought up Hitler because I see Nazism emanating from the mods of this board. Sure he's blunt and sure he treads on people's toes sometimes, but I actually enjoy his brusque posts. I think he should be unbanned considering he did nothing wrong except for hurting the wrong moderator's feelings (Trinity). And if you're banning him on the grounds that he didn't comply with the OP's request, when in fact he did, then nearly all posters on this board would be banned. As Obiwan said, the mods have been stalking Ares15 for some time looking for the right time to ban him, this wasn't that time imo. What Trinity did was nothing more than a blatant abuse of power.

As for Bush, he's seems like a very down-to-earth guy who can relate to the average American.

By Cheezeit08 (Cheezeit08) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Moderator, why did you close the thread about negative comments about Bush? Are we only allowed to say positive things about people? I thought we had the right to free speech. If we criticize without cursing, then I don't see what the problem is.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 07:00 pm: Edit

I was wondering if there were any rational, thinking conservative types on this discussion board. I have been amazed at the venomous liberalism I have encountered even on non-political threads. Bush will go down as one of our greatest presidents, right up there with Reagan. So few Presidents have shown this level of leadership. He has stuck to his guns over and over again, and the liberals criticize him for being stubborn. What's the point of having principles if you don't stick to them? If we don't re-elect him this fall, I fear our country will get what it deserves. And any idiot that thinks he's out to fill up his wallet leaves me wondering what planet he's living on. If Bush was simply out to get rich (or get his friends rich) he would first have to be concerned about getting re-elected. He wouldn't have taken any risks, and he would vacillate on controversial issues and try to play both sides. That would fairly describe Clinton. Seems to me he's the one getting rich these days, what with his and Hillary's books, their speaking fees, their cronyism, etc. Bush has appointed a lot of good people to office whom he's never known or had political ties to. He's taken bold leadership in the Middle East (and only after 9/11, not before, for those that claim he was out to take over all the oil from day one), he's taken unpopular stances on embryonic stem cell research and appointing pro-life, conservative federal judges. He has the vision thing, man. He's sees something needs to be done about the Middle East in the name of world peace, instead of just sitting on his hands like some liberals would've had him do. Even if Irag doesn't hold together, I still think some valuable seeds have been planted there that may someday lead to lasting stability. He takes everybody's flak and keeps on ticking. I say that's great courage and leadership. He also knows how to get things done efficiently, by Washington standards. If he see a problem, he fixes it, or appoints someone who can. One final thing, Dick Cheney is one of the greatest Vice-Presidents we've ever had. Let's not overlook him. I'm glad there are at least a few college parents here whose minds aren't clouded by irrational hatred.

Wow, it's refreshing to see somebody whose mind isn't clouded by irrational hatred! (To steal your line. :P)

By Penn2stanford (Penn2stanford) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit

I too would like to see Ares15 unbanned. Trinity has blatantly abused his power and HE should be banned. Censuring an individual for doing nothing wrong simply because you are in a position of power and don't like someone, come on.

Ares violated our rules. It has nothing to do with liking someone or not. I do not ban people for whimsical reasons. Ares15's posts made it an esay decision and he will not be unbanned.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

While I do not agree with some of Bush's principles, I do commend him for having them, unlike Clinton, and sticking to them.

Agree with whomever said that he is excellent in deferring to those with more knowledge than he has.

His presidency has had more than it's share of problems which he had no part in. 9/11, largest power outage in years (or ever), taking office as Clinton's economy tanked, dot-com bust (which was bound to happen), corporate scandal (Tyco, Global Crossings, et al) which wrecked havoc on the stock market (hey, even I lost money in that), 3/11 in Madrid affected us - and the guy keeps going. Clinton had eight years of peace and prosperity - he will never be a great president (as he, unlike FDR, Lincoln, or Washington, did not have any major problems). Bush had the opposite. I must commend the guy for not crawling into a corner to get away from it all.

By Cheezeit08 (Cheezeit08) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 07:17 pm: Edit

"Post anything contrary to the OP request and you will be banned immediately."

What is this, a dictatorship? I tried to start my own thread so that we can express contrary views, but it's been closed. I suggest the moderators on this board don't let their personal views influence their actions. It's a free country, people, remember that.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 07:31 pm: Edit

I'm sure the moderators are just sick and tired of flaming liberal "know it alls" taking over everything. I mean, we have to level the playing field, don't we, liberals!? WE HAVE TO GIVE THE OPPRESSED CONSERVATIVES A RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS, FREE FROM THE EVILS OF THE WHITE MAN!!!


...;)

Cheezeit08 and Goodchocolate and anyone else, this thread has ground rules. If you choose to play, you follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't play. It's as simple as bad. There are boards for unfettered free expression, this is not one of them. Furthermore, arguing with the Mods is a violation of your terms of service and is one of the fastest ways to get banned.

The Mods in fact have a range of political views that span about 160 degrees. If we disciplined posters according to our own views, a couple of you would have been banned a long time ago for just general obnoxiousness but we've been bending over backwards. As it is, don't press your luck.

There are at least three Mods watching this thread closely right now, probably with itchy trigger fingers. The basic rules boil down to: Play Nice and Don't Run With Scissors.

--Moderator Obiwan

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 07:59 pm: Edit

lol I love you mods. I want to be one of you so badly right now. (the only thing is I think you mean "360" degrees)

I totally appreciate you guys coming in here like Gangbusters and taking away posts that clearly and flagrantly violate the OP's specific request. And any diversion into Nazism is awful anyway.

did any of you read Ares15's post? I think it had something to do with more Hitler...it doesn't matter what the person after it said.

Again, I think Bush has shown remarkable leadership and restraint in this time. The more calm he remains, the louder his critics scream.

By Cheezeit08 (Cheezeit08) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 08:06 pm: Edit

To The Moderators:
Okay, I understand that I have to follow the rules, and I'm willing to do that. But please, answer this questions:
WHY WAS THE THREAD I CREATED TITLED "GEORGE W. BUSH - NEGATIVE COMMENTS ONLY" CLOSED FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER? Are we not allowed to criticize the president but just praise him? I don't get it. Please answer this question and I will no longer post under this thread.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 08:15 pm: Edit

Hey, I was insulting liberalism, which makes conservativism better, and thus makes Bush look better. I didn't break any rules!

By Cheezeit08 (Cheezeit08) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

TOS states:
"Out of respect for both moderators and policies, discussion of moderator actions and forum policies is welcomed via e-mail."

Please, can a moderator answer my question before I have to consult the webmaster? Thank you.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit

It's not the webmaster, Cheezit. Emails do go to the mods themselves. I've emailed them before and it works just fine.

By Cornellian (Cornellian) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:07 am: Edit

Obiwan, you basically ignored what I said. Ares15 explained his post in a mature, logical manner, the other poster came to agree with him. The mod who banned him, Trinity I'm guessing, only banned him because he didn't *like* Ares15. There was no violation of the TOS that warranted his banning. Can you please address the points being mentioned by various posters here instead of giving some generic response?

I did not read the original exchange with Ares15 though he was mightily pushing the boundaries with me in another thread, so I can't comment. I'm not the Mod who closed the negative Bush thread, so I can't comment on that either. Sorry.

The current sofware is not particularly good about letting Mods talk about things in something close to real time.
(No, the Mods don't all work out of the same physical location. Isn't the Internet wonderful?)

However, while Mods have varying idiosyncracies and pressure points, it is very rare for one Mod to ever second guess another and extremely rare for Management to over-rule the Mod staff. You must think of different Mods as being different traffic cops: one might let you off with a warning, another will give you a breath test, another will give you a ticket, and another will ask you for a date.

My GUESS is that the Negative Bush thread was closed because it was just too much flame bait, even for the Cafe. There are both pro- and anti-Bush Mods (some of our off-line discussions have been, ah, interesting) and I can pretty much vouch that no thread has ever been closed out of personal political pique.

--Moderator Obiwan

By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:19 am: Edit

. . .positive things about George Bush.

hmmm. . .I know there are some, but nothing is coming to mind right now. When I think of one I will come back and post it.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:28 am: Edit

Reid: how about his blood type?

By Cornellian (Cornellian) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:46 am: Edit

Obiwan-

How do we contact the CC administration? I think it's clear that Trinity is abusing his power and something should be done about it. There's nothing more sad than seeing someone stripped of freedom of speech for no reason. I'll say it again, Ares15 did NOT infringe on the holy TOS.

By August (August) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 04:49 am: Edit

Bush is a great comedian. He is so funny, without even trying. Just seeing his vacant facial expressions, hearing his nonsensical pronouncements on world affairs -- it's enough to crack me up. (That is, until I remind myself of all the carnage that has resulted from his ill-gotten presidency, and horror takes over again.)

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:59 am: Edit

I like that he exercises without stopping at fast-food joints on the way.

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit

august, shut up. Maybe read the thread before you go posting like an idiot. Like, I don't know, READ THE TITLE AND THE OP'S DIRECTIONS. You are just showing everyone how Bush's critics just can't control their mouths (or posts in this case).

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit

august and all these other bush bashers on this board demonstrate that classless disrespect and hatred for a President that really turn me off from any of their views. While I have very strong critisms of kerry, I never went on his positive thread and tried to sabatoge it like you bush bashing clowns.

By Insanity (Insanity) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit

I like Bush because he sticks to his beliefs and I think he relates to the average person quite well. Also his cabinet is composed of some very adequate, valuable people.

By August (August) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Maybe you should "shut up", Babybird87. After all, if it is so very important to you to follow directions, then why are you making a post entirely devoted to criticizing ME when the OP explicitly asked that you talk only about how great Bush is?

Jlq3d3, classless is better than mindless. And, wow, you Bush supporters really show a lot of forbearance, refraining from sabotaging the Kerry thread. Maybe next time do something really classy and, I don't know, maybe vote for someone who's not committed to mass murder?

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit

whatever. keep doing it. maybe you'll remind the voting public what some liberals are like-- whiny and childish.

By August (August) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Ooh, the classic "whatever" argument. You got me there.

You people are complete jokes. It's so typical of Bush supporters to go crying to the moderators as has been done on this thread, trying to shut up anybody who disagrees with them, just so you can continue with your rosy living-in-a-bubble outlook. What do I expect, when still believing in Bush at this point requires a constant, shall we say, editing of reality?

It's interesting that you find opposition to murder and class oppression whiny and childish. If that's what those words mean to you, then I wish there were more whiny and childish people, instead of deluded and ignorant people like those praising Bush in this thread.

If anybody else wants to communicate anything to me, feel free, but don't bother putting it in this thread because I'm not going to waste my time reading it anymore.

I'll help you avoiding wasting even more time, August.

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 08:40 pm: Edit

good. I'd never want you to waste your time...you know, not like coming into a thread likely to be hostile to your melodramatic comments and then hanging around. I'd feel awful if that happened.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Neo, who exactly has been doing the dividing on this thread?

By Savedbythebell7 (Savedbythebell7) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

There shouldn't even be controversary here, read MorganTruce's original message, it's disgusting if you're in here bashing bush, because it just means you refuse to even look at the positive things about the man.

Bush has principles and follows through with his word.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Bush is the second president to be the son of a president...

I like presidents who support precedents.

I also like that he tries to speak from the *heart* rather than just some standard cards, which is why he stumbles so much--most of the time, anyways.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 12:44 am: Edit

"I also like that he tries to speak from the *heart* rather than just some standard cards, which is why he stumbles so much--most of the time, anyways. "

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Are you trying to say that he stumbles because he tries to veer off the cards provided to him and speak from that heart? hahaha. No not at all, he just cant fluently read the cards.

I hope those presiding over this thread have enough sense not to ban me for this.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 01:30 am: Edit

DEMOCRACY.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 01:40 am: Edit

Ya, I get the feeling that when Bush speaks, even if it isnt the smoothest or most eloquent, he means what he says and is sincere. I can relate to him more than someone like Kerry who seems so arrogent and "prefabricated" if you will.

By Crazylicious (Crazylicious) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:06 am: Edit

Bush isn't racist/sexist... yay

By Conker (Conker) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 07:55 pm: Edit

"Bush has stood up to the most bitter critics ever in the most polarized nation ever"

You sure about this? I mean, America in its early days was pretty scary. What one party would say about the other party would be today constituted as slander. I think that Bush has had to stand up to a lot by modern standards, but certainly not a lot in the history of this nation.

I apologize, as it is neither a positive nor a negative comment on GWB himself. But I wanted clarificaiton.

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 08:21 pm: Edit

I started these three "positive threads" for a reason. There is ONE unique trait that identifies Americans: most of us have a lot of respect for the opinions of others. Most of us would vigorously defend someone else's right to speak unpopular ideas. We are proud of our First Amendment rights and each of us knows of at least a few people who have made great sacrifice so that we may sit at our computers and write our (often stupid) ideas freely.

Few of us would think of running into someone else's church and saying some awful thing. Why then would you dump all over other people's words and ideas? I "gave" everyone a thread to speak his or her positive views of Bush, Kerry, and Nader. Anyone with half a brain realizes that none of these three men are perfect. Actually all three are quite seriously flawed people, but in November we will choose ONE to be President. The only way that I will be able to make the best choice is to compare the best aspects of each of them. That is why I called for "only positive comments".

Any fool can come up with negative thoughts. If you care about our system, try to come up with positive comments about all the candidates.

The LAST thing I want to do in November is vote for Bush because Kerry "is a jerk"---or vote for Kerry because Bush "is an idiot".

Get it?

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit

i hate to say this but hey...they started it. :)

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit

Conker,

Yeah, I'd probably confine my comment about polarization and bitterness to the modern era, especially the polarization thing.

I mean, at least Bush and Gore didn't settle the election with a duel.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

Again... thanks, MorganTruce!

Also, would you consider a thread for the Green party nominee, who is NOT Nader? I realize that very few people know anything about him, but he will be on the ballot in many states.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit

"I mean, at least Bush and Gore didn't settle the election with a duel. "

It's quite a pity, no?

By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 01:53 am: Edit

Hey everybody. . .still working on my positive GWB comment. Almost had one earlier today. Will post soon. Bye. . .

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 07:40 am: Edit

Ariesathena,

You don't need my "permission" to start a thread for the Green Party candidate. Go for it! Third party campaigns are sometimes the only interesting thing that happens in current election cycles. Many of us are too young to have watched a real Democrat or Republican party convention on TV--the kind where candidates really ARE picked. Third parties still do this---it might come from a rented Holiday Inn, but it's as close to a real exciting political convention as any of us will see for a long time. Several TV networks don't even cover the meaningless major party conventions. Sad situation.


Reidmc,
Keep working on it. Eventually you will come up with a good one. :) One thing I guarantee: when you do post it, you will get a fine buzz off it---that lasts.

By Justice (Justice) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Good things...

Bush is not intelligent or motivated enough to be deliberately scandalous (ie Watergate).

Bush's tax cut was sound supply-side economics. See why nobody's complaining about it anymore? Cuz my liberal peers with their demagogic "omg, top1 percent getting lotsa money! omg omg" realize that tax cut coupled with control over money flow is very effective at stimulating the economy.

Bush is not as protectionist as he could have been in his position with his background, which shows he can compromise.

Bush can go to places of international diplomacy and make people laugh unintentionally. That's always cool I guess.

By Allena (Allena) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:49 pm: Edit

"Bush is not intelligent or motivated enough to be deliberately scandalous (ie Watergate)."

So you're saying that if Bush decided to get involved in a scandle it'd make him a better president? Now personally, I looked down upon all the scandles of Clinton, however after reading that I guess it is those scandles that show what a strong leader and what a good and decent person you are. And to think, I've spent all these years thinking that scandalous behavior was a bad thing!

By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Bush values human dignity. He has been steadfast in his support of pro-life legislation, in the face of vehement opposition. I find it so very interesting that people like August call him a mass murderer and express such concern over the lives lost in Iraq, but blithely ignore the 30 million plus lives lost to abortion in our country since Roe v. Wade. That's more than all our wars combined. You scoff and call them blobs of protoplasm. You don't give them a second thought as you spend gobs of time railing against a man who has done more to protect your life than you'll ever know. And you know what? Your hatred of him will not make him hesitate one iota to continue to take action to protect you and your family. Because he doesn't do things just to win public opinion polls or sell books or bask in public adulation. You're a lucky person, August, to be alive.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Sometimes its the little things that help see someone in a new light... i always was skeptical of bush's intentions in Iraq, thus I always maintained a negative view of him. However during the NATO summit yesterday Bush was fowarded a handwritten note from Condoleezza Rice that read:
"Mr. President, Iraq is sovereign. Letter was passed from Bremer at 10:26 am Iraq time --Condi"

Bush responded by writing on the note in thick sharpie "Let Freedom Reign!"

Nothing big, but for me it completely affirmed his sincerity

By Sprangbang (Sprangbang) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 11:37 am: Edit

Wrong thread.

By Sprangbang (Sprangbang) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 11:41 am: Edit

and scubasteve, have you considered how that little note made it onto nationwide news? I'm sure Condi Rice was just showing it off for everyone to see. I have no doubt he wishes for freedom there, but don't think for one second that the note wasn't a PR ploy. And don't think that a little note disproves any secondary intentions of Mr. Bush's.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Deleted.

By Clipper (Clipper) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 08:40 pm: Edit

I guess some people (those above) can't follow the directions. I am not going to try to argue with Sprang's points above bc this is supposed to a positive thread.

Even if you don't agree with Bush's decisions he makes them from the heart rather than the polls.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:18 pm: Edit

I find it amusing when people complain about Bush's tax cut taking money away from people, and also complain about his deficit spending and huge increases in welfare and education spending. Face it, you hate him because he's a born again Christian and really for no other reason. Just admit the truth.

By Fueng08 (Fueng08) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 04:46 pm: Edit

chavi thats flat-out retarded.

thats all i really had to say.


on a side note, as soon as i saw the title of this thread i thought "wow this is going to be one short thread"...but apparently not.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Face it, you hate him because he's a born again Christian and really for no other reason. Just admit the truth.

No, they hate him because he's a Right-wing Republican. Didn't Reagan have the same problem?

Leftists need to put a bad label on anything that disagrees with their ideology -- conservatives are now reactionaries, group loyalty is fascism or racism, prefering traditional sex roles is sexist, opposing gay marriage is homophobic, opposing welfare and/or wanting tax cuts is selfish...and George W. Bush is stupid, a conspirator, a bad leader, etc.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit

It works both ways Goodchocolate and you know that. We can play the same game on both sides. That doesn't mean the labeling is right, but it's unfair to say that only the left does it.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Don't feel like starting a new thread so I will just write this here:

I really don't understand why Bush is praised for his tax cuts...and take it even a step further by saying that Kerry plans to raise taxes

Under Kerry's plan, 98% of Americans will keep the tax cuts given by Bush. The top 2% will have them taken away, which will free up a lot of cash to execute many of the programs Bush could not find the $$ for....it seems fair to me.

..I mean how many of you are even in the top 2% anyway? I find it rather ironic that a lot of you probably aren't, and yet are complaining about Kerry's tax plan and praising Bush's

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Amen, Goodchocolate.

Note: This was a dead post until Sprangbang brought it back up and blatantly ignored the rules of the thread.

Do liberals hate Bush because of his religion? Sure, some people do. But that's definitely not the only reason. On the other hand, some liberals are refreshed by his Christian convictions.

Oh, and about Kerry's tax plan: if all 70 of Kerry's proposed promises become law, the federal deficit is actually projected to balloon an additional 226 billion dollars. Unfortunately, Bush's plan doesn't really help that number either, but the fiscal projection for the deficit now is 100 billion below estimates from five months ago, so he's workin' on it...

By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit

I'm being serious too - One more post like this, and you're gone from CC

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Clarification: I didn't say all liberals hate Bush due to his Christianity. That was Chavi, a couple posts up. I said that some liberals do hate him for that reason, but others aren't affected or are refreshed by it. Apologies for the confusion.

And Pookdogg has two "g"s. And yes, it makes a difference.

By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 06:00 pm: Edit

hahaha ok pookdogg.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Bush is decisive, strong, and bold. He did not take crap from the UN (particularly France which had economic ties to Saddam's Iraq) when overthrowing Sadam.


He has killed or captured thousands of terrorists/brutal thugs, including top leaders of Al-qaeda, Baath party officials, and Saddam Hussein.

Like it or not, W BUsh will go down in history as one of the the most influential and decisive presidents ever.

Also, Liberals who flame W just because he "can't speak right" are the stupidest people ever. Many of them have never even been to one of Bush's speeches (like I have) and get all of their impressions by watching SNL, Leno, or Letterman. BTW, Thomas Jefferson was also a terrible public speaker and he was one of the greatest presidents there was.

By Nhlgoalie (Nhlgoalie) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Blah Blah

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 05:10 pm: Edit

next time learn to read instructions better...there are plenty of other threads for your ideas.

By Remindergto (Remindergto) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Edited.

By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Edited

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 09:05 pm: Edit

For the love of God, just stop with the bashing, we're discussing POSTIVE aspects of Bush. Serious positives, not sarcastic remarks. Despite what Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, etc. may say, there are legitimate positives to both sides, so at least exercise some brain power and step away from the polarized mindset.

Funny, this is the second time I've had to post this...

By Jekyllnhyde10 (Jekyllnhyde10) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Thanks for your opinion

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:20 pm: Edit

Funny how many liberals (especially the super whackos) always talk about toleration and acceptance of other peopole's views, yet they never seem to stop talking •••• about vets (the "BABY KILLER!" crap is starting again *happened in Washington), religious people, conservatives, "rednecks", etc...

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Liberals attack Bush for being stupid, yet they seem unable to read the subject of this thread.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Bush's speeches can get to be pretty funny when he doesn't follow the TelePrompTer! We need a funny President. (whether he means to be or not)

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 08:05 am: Edit

He is qualified to ba an ayatollah

Read the post below this one. This was the LAST warning on this thread.
Trinity

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit

CAn you bush-bashers not read instructions? Yet again, you guys ahve show your vicious hatred by trying to mess this thread up.

Please respect the OP wishes. We have been here before and, this time, no warnings are necessary. Post in this thread at your own risk. If someone reports a negative post and I agree that the post is offensive, it will simply be your last one on CC. It does not get any simpler.
Moderator Trinity

By Chicken123 (Chicken123) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Few people can use sarcasm effectively. You are not one of them and, by the way, no longer a CC poster Goodbye.

By Chicken123 (Chicken123) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Deleted

By Kissy (Kissy) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit

It's eye-opening to find that some of the pit bulls on the board will jump the fence, even on a "safe haven" thread, to attack differing viewpoints. So much for tolerance.....

I see the political polarization in this country as a symptom, not the problem. Call it culture wars or what you will, but most people seem to embrace one of two differing value systems and their political ideologies follow suit. Most people seem to follow political party lines instead of looking at the individual candidates because the party platform aligns with their values and beliefs. That's why we see supporters clinging to their tarnished heroes (Clinton comes to mind), turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy of it all. For many, the end justifies the means to pushing their values to the forefront of the political agenda at all costs. That, and bad manners, accounts for much of the negativity on this thread.

GWB has not only perservered but moved forward during one of the most trying times in our nation's modern-day history. He's a principled man who follows his moral compass, whether it's popular or not. While I don't agree with him on all issues, he has my respect as someone who has the courage to remain steadfast in the face of adversity. It's not inflexibility, it's called leadership.

By Zacdizzle (Zacdizzle) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 04:36 pm: Edit

I wrote to George W. Bush back when he was the governor of Texas I believe. This was back in middle school and he wrote back. I was complaining about some traffic laws and congested areas and He told me he would look into all that cool stuff.

GOt a thick packet back and his autograph.
haha :D
Dont Mess With Texas.

By Mosquito86 (Mosquito86) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Hey guys.

I just wanted to say that I think this thread was a great idea. I am a Kerry supporter, but I've felt that I have to learn more about the other side. Thanks for giving me a more well-rounded opinion of Bush.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 12:15 am: Edit

Iran is in the process of developing a nuclear bomb. It has several long range missiles (none that can reach the USA yet). Iran has a substantial number of its citizens who believe that the way to get into heaven is to kill Americans and/or those with western lifestyles. Iran is currently the world's major exporter of terror. If Pres. Bush is re-elected, the USA will have both the credibility and ability (Bush) to prevent Iran from using (by missile or by terrorists) a nuclear weapon. If Sen. Kerry is elected, he will talk tough and do nothing because Kerry and the Democratic party view pre-emptive action as another Vietnam.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit

I like Bush's commitment to fighting terror and keeping the US and world safer. Kerry on the other hand has said these 2 very disturbing things:
"We'll stregnthen our military, gain international support, and THEN we can fight terror"

I want someone who can and wants to fight terror and hostile threats now, not under the hostage of the french and other corrupt countries.


Another scary thing Kerry said:
"I'll fight a smarter more SENSITIVE war on terror"

I do not want any slack or sensitivity given to those who wish to do evil upon us and others.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 05:49 pm: Edit

We don't have to worry about any sex scandals.

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Outside of the things I've mentioned in earlier threads...

He's a better golfer: Kerry doesn't even have an official scoring handicap, while Bush is a little under 10. That's actually pretty good.

He's from Texas. Anyone who can survive living there is surely more fit to survive the harsh life of politics.

He's not a Red Sox fan. Kerry supports a team that hasn't won a World Series since 1918. What kind of America would it be, one where the leader cheers for a chronically losing team? I don't know, and I don't wanna know.

By Copper45 (Copper45) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Responded well to 9-11?

Now watch my drive.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 07:37 pm: Edit

I guess you are in the small minority cooper. Liberals and Conservatives alike overwhelmingly approved of the President's leadership after 9/11. Now that the election year is here, liberals need to find a way to make bush look bad.

Cooper, can you read the topic of this thread? I guess not.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 07:50 pm: Edit

I just thought of something else,

Bush, while being smarter than most people give him credit for (again, he's not dumb, just a terrible off-the-cuff speaker...like me :) ), he also surrounds himself with incredibly brilliant people. While he may not be the most attractive guy in the world, Cheney is very intelligent...he really knows his ••••, but again most people will just go, "OMG Haliburton he's so evil he said the f-word!", but he is a great VP choice (although not politically due to the Edwards contrast). Rice, Powell, Cho, Rummy, etc. are all very knowledgeable people and well suited for their jobs.

Also, from a politically strategic point, Bush knows enough to let other people fight his battles in this campaign. He doesn't engage Kerry in mudslinging directly, rather he lets normal party politics take care of that for him (all he has to do his say, "I'm GWB, and I approved this message"). And when he really gets angry, he lets Cheney loose to lay the SMACKDOWN...like he did with the "Sensitive War" comment. Smart strategically, although it would be nice if both sides toned down the bitterness.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit

I agree with your first paragraph... however i'm not sure how being an expert in indirect negative mudslinging is a positive attribute..

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

You have a lot of nerve accusing him of mudslinging when the Dems are calling Bush a liar, a fascist, a racist, a murderer, etc. I guess the difference is they're being direct?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 08:09 pm: Edit

He is saying that it is not a positive attribute for Bush contrary to what Hunter said ... that's all. He did not say that it was a positive attribute for Dems to be mudslingers. That's all he was saying. I think we can agree that mudslinging of any kind (direct or indirect) is not a postive attribute no matter who it is.

Some of you (i.e. Chavi) are way to high strung and need to calm down a little. You read way too much into what the other side is saying.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 08:24 pm: Edit

Chavi, I never accused him of mudslinging.. as Craig said and if you read what Hunter wrote you would see that I was merely declaring mudslinging (whether it be direct or indirect) as a negative attribute, not a positive one as hunter spun it.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:50 pm: Edit

I'll clarify:

1. Mudslinging=bad and both parties do it.

2. When Kerry does it, he calls out GWB by himself, thereby making himself look worse than GWB, who has his right-hand men do it for him. He never calls out Kerry (or rarely) himself, making himself a bit "cleaner" than Kerry.

3. While being able to mudsling is not a positive attribute, it shows that GWB knows how to play the game better than Kerry, IMO...which carries over to being able to work within the system well- he is politically smart.

Not a morally positive attribute, but still something he has over Kerry- he is politically smarter than Kerry and knows how to maintain his own image.

It's just a current thing though...Clinton was DA MASTER of the clean mudslinging...just ask his political hitman James Carville...the Ragin' Cagin!

By Chavi (Chavi) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

You'r right, my bad. I misread Scubasteve. But what I said still goes in general. I'm really curious as to exactly what mudslinging people are always talking about when referring to Bush? I have never heard Cheney say anything innapropriate, but the Dems get away with all kinds of direct and indirect references to Bush being a murderer, liar, etc. What could be worse?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:30 am: Edit

I'm not sure if you remember the Clinton years, but I can think of more than a few wild accusations.

By Mosquito86 (Mosquito86) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 07:23 am: Edit

Chavi,

The Dems get away w/ all kinds of direct and indirect reference to Bush......etc?

I'm sorry both parties throughout their history have "gotten away" w/ that. Both parties mudsling just as much as the other. It's just at certain periods of time one party does it more than the other.

I don't think it's fair to attack one party on something like that. Both are guilty of it.

By Kissy (Kissy) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 09:50 am: Edit

Here's an email I received which doesn't bash Kerry or Nader. Food for thought........

Lemme see, have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists
-
good...
Bush liberates 25 million from genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good....
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad....

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in a flight suit - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Recession under Bush after 9-11 - bad...

Clinton imposes largest tax increase in history -good...
Bush instigates moderate tax cuts for all Americans - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
Then World Trade Centers fall under Bush - Bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam in custody - bad...

Oh, it's so confusing! I guess I'll never make a good Democrat.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:13 am: Edit

Kissy,

Awesome post. You could add:

Clinton bypasses Congress and the U.N. to fight a war in Serbia -- good.
Bush obtains Iraq war resolution from Congress and approval from the U.N. -- bad.

Clinton (and every other democrat) talks about the importance of a Medicare prescription drug benefit but laments on how it can't be done because of Republican opposition -- good.
Bush causes the enactment of a Medicare presciption drug benefit -- bad.

By Kissy (Kissy) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:19 am: Edit

Great additions, Thinking! Maybe others have more they can add, too!









continued at Part 2


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page