Can't support Bush anymore

[Billy Batson]

Pres. Bush is under an absolute microscope, like all Presidents, but I feel that he has been under even more fire because of the way that he has rubbed the Democrats -- he is the epitome of a Republican on foreign affairs and has truly polarized the US in ways that it has not been in the entirety of my memory (admittedly, not very long).

I feel that there was no way that the Hurricane response could have been perfect and free of criticism; we have not had a major natural disaster like that in so long that we were bound to experience a lot of problems. Unfortunately, Pres. Bush was on watch, and he has to take the fire for it.

Overall, the President has done some great things -- in the midst of economic recession he fixed the economy (putting us back in the 4% growth rate number, which looked like a challenge with so many Democrats saying we were in recession); he liberated two nations and brought liberalized and lax policies to several other nations through aggressive diplomacy.

He is not the perfect President but I do not feel as if he has let us down, or disappointed us as a whole. I am happy with the way that I voted. I am sad to see someone give up the GOP and say this about our President.

no, he deserves all the criticism he gets for the katrina mess, which is entirely of his own making. he invoked memories of 9/11 in a political move that backfired immediately. the point of the the actions he took after 9/11 was so that the nation would be better prepared to handle emergencies in times of massive crisis. the destruction of a city would quality, i believe. the fact that he rolled FEMA into Homeland Security would prove to be a detriment to any real effort to rescue the people in an orderly and sane way. FEMA failed and thus Homeland Security failed. the man, michael brown, who was head of FEMA was a crony to Bush or Bush cabinet member. the man had zero experience working in a crisis situation and proved so with a haphazard response. the man was a horse show judge of some sort before he was fired from that last job before his posting at FEMA. there is a document that tracks the actions individuals took in preparation for katrina. the governor asked for federal aid before the storm even hit. the response was dead awful and the animosity of a disappointed nation is fully expected.

 

[DieHappy]

DieHappy: "Bush didn't slander the minute men, he just ignored them. I agree that they need support and Bush needs to do something about our borders, but weigh the good and the bad...."

The issue of immigration is a key one, for people in both parties. I will tell you that Bush and his particular crew will never do anything significant about immigration reform, even as it relates to our national security. The reason is that their key philosophy is about supporting big business - hiring illegals, guest workers, outsourcing jobs keeps wages down, keeps costs down, makes more bucks for richer people. Look what Bush did about removing prevailing wage rules in rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina - now the contractors can hire some cheap Honduran labor for $7-$9 per hour, instead of paying an American man a more liveable wage of $15-20 per hour, so that he can feed his family. Is this the direction you want your country to go in - the flow of illegals is NOT being stopped, and they are coming in by the thousands.

well, this could spin way out of control but there's one thing about the pay act that you need to know: every president in nearly every emergency situation has recinded it. You can't hold it against Bush. At least 3 presidents before him did the same thing for what seems to be smaller disasters.
I also think you're wrong about Bush not fighting immigration. It's not for wages and profit, it's for votes. That's the same reason Clinton did nothing about immigration and the same reason Buchannon got ridiculed by the democrats for proposing a wall. You can't blame Bush alone for immigration problems because if he were trying to seal up the borders tighter than Cheney's left coronary artery then the democrats would be screaming about racism. It's all about votes so you can't just say it'd Bush's fault. This is an issue I will not defend him on, but I can't pretend that the problem is his when it's so obviously not.

 

[draper]

against manufacturing humans, against using fetal tissue to experiment with cures for diseases mostly brought on by sin and the FDA. I will continue to vote for a President that believes in the Sanctity of a husband and wife marriage.

Teehee.

majority of other nations have left sense and sanity and followed New Age and Islam

Erm..? Cite one country, please.

 

[sethad]

Who appointed the head of FEMA with exactly no qualifications for the job what so ever?

Read what I wrote.

Bush appointed him based on the references he had. and as I said, if you had read my post, was that those references obviously didnt have much credibility.

 

[parousia70]

My point was that he could not have been appointed under the Homeland Security Act because the Homeland Security Act didn't exist.

Here's where you are making your mistake.

In June of 2002 Brown was appointed by GWB and confirmed by the Senate to the position of DEPUTY director of the Federal Emergency Management agency, under then director Joe Albaugh.

In March of 2003, GWB INSTALLED Brown, WITHOUT SENATE CONFIRMATION, to the position of DIRECTOR, as the well in effect at the time homeland security act allowed him to do.

Rendering your stated "point" moot.

The Senate confirmed him to be "Robin", but Bush made him "Batman" on his own, and that move by Bush is what folks are rightly holding him responsible for.

 

[12volt_man]

Here's where you are making your mistake.

In June of 2002 Brown was appointed by GWB and confirmed by the Senate to the position of DEPUTY director of the Federal Emergency Management agency, under then director Joe Albaugh.

In March of 2003, GWB INSTALLED Brown, WITHOUT SENATE CONFIRMATION, to the position of DIRECTOR, as the well in effect at the time homeland security act allowed him to do.

Rendering your stated "point" moot.

The Senate confirmed him to be "Robin", but Bush made him "Batman" on his own, and that move by Bush is what folks are rightly holding him responsible for.

So then, as I said, they did appoint him.

Now, as I said, why was President Bush wrong to appoint him, but the Senate Democrats not wrong to appoint him.

 

[blueapplepaste]

So then, as I said, they did appoint him.

Now, as I said, why was President Bush wrong to appoint him, but the Senate Democrats not wrong to appoint him.

Wow! You just don't get it. Bush essentially gave him a promotion without consent of the senate. No one's debating the Senate confirmed him as deputy, but the senate did not confirm him as director.

And you seem to infer that Dems should shoulder the blame for his appointment...last I checked the repubs control congress. Where is your outrage at them??

 

[12volt_man]

No one's debating the Senate confirmed him as deputy, but the senate did not confirm him as director.

The bottom line is that he did have to pass a confirmation process. They did review his credentials and they did decide, unanimously, that he was well qualified.

And you seem to infer that Dems should shoulder the blame for his appointment

I'm not going to insult you and violate the no flaming rule by calling you "thick", so I'm just going to assume that you haven't read my posts.

If you had, you would have said that I never said this.

What I said is that, if you believe that President Bush was wrong to nominate him, then it's hypocritical to give Senators a pass for confirming him, just because they happen to belong to your party.

...last I checked the repubs control congress. Where is your outrage at them??

Why should I feel outrage at anybody? I don't believe that anybody did anything wrong.

You guys are the ones saying that President Bush was wrong to appoint him, not me.

I believe that the President and the Senators, including the Democrats, made a good faith decision, based on the best information they had at that time.

 

[PACKY]

Teehee.

I LOVE IT DRAPER!!!!!!

 

[PACKY]

Wow! You're thick. Bush essentially gave him a promotion without consent of the senate. No one's debating the Senate confirmed him as deputy, but the senate did not confirm him as director.

And you seem to infer that Dems should shoulder the blame for his appointment...last I checked the repubs control congress. Where is your outrage at them??

Christian Forums Message

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to blueapplepaste again.

​

 

[SackLunch]

After many, many weeks of debating in my mind, I've come to a conclusion about our President: he stinks. Sorry to everyone that I voted for the guy. Politics aside, you just needed to watch Bush when he first hit the ground in Mississippi all 'ums' and 'uhs' to see the guy just isn't leadership material. But its not just that, that was just the straw that broke the camels back. His slander of the Minutemen, super-failure to do anything about our fuel crisis, endorsing renewal of the Patriot Act.......the list goes on. (Iraq isn't really that big a sore point for me, but thats for another topic.) As a Republican who voted for Bush, I feel obligated to continue to support the person I elected, but as a man, I have to call a spade a spade, swallow the pride and agree with what so many -even, God forgive me, Michael Moore-have said: Bush is the wrong man to be President. Now, I'll take all the 'I told you so's' from the Dems and the Left, I've made my bed and I will lie in it so fire away. Voting for Bush was a foolish move on my part, but I'd be even more of a fool if I kept supporting him. The writings on the wall with Bush, how ironic so many of the predominantly Chrisitian GOP can't read it. Just how far into hell are you people going to follow this guy?

BTW, taking down the Elephant icon. Posted this here instead of the GOP forums so non-Repubs could respond if they wanted too without worrying about being reported. I also encourage other Bush supporters to seriously re-think their position and ask themselves if they are just letting pride keep them hanging on. What's he doing thats so great, show me just one thing that he has done that is worthy of the deep devotion and defense he gets? Not being a liberal or a Democrat doesn't seem to quite cut it anymore.

Good for you! I feel the exact same way. I'm an evangelical Christian who woke up to this around 2002 when Bush started on his "the economy is strong and growing stronger" repetitive talking point nonsense, in light of the fact that the job market stunk (Still stinks) and he signed CAFTA into law which will send even MORE American jobs overseas.

I voted for Kerry in the last elections. I am sad he lost, as he is very intelligent and has the ideal political background to get the job done. I thought Kerry won the debates hands-down, and was surprised when Bush got the vote. There is also talk of voter fraud due to Diebold's programming, etc.

You dare to quote Michael Moore, you ultra-liberal! I have grown to respect Michael Moore. Have you seen his other films other than Fahrenheit 9/11? There's also "The Big One," "Bowling for Columbine," and "Roger and Me." All are good, but none are AS GOOD as Fahrenheit 9/11. Anyhow, when I signed up for this board, I specifically did not cite my political affiliation becuase I don't really know where I stand right now. I suppose I'd be independent, but of late some of my beliefs are Democratic. Personally I just have to consider my opposition to abortion and homosexuality, although there ARE some conservative Democrats who are opposed to these things as well.

 

[soblessed53]

I would just like to say that I admire your courage,humbleness and your honesty. But remember we all make mistakes,and are capable of being mislead by politicians empty promises and rhetoric, You certainly are not alone,there. The most important thing we all can do is pray for our country.I am afraid that "forevermore" Katrina will be used as the government's excuse as to why things are so bad. God Bless You

 

[Zoot]

I'm sure you're in good company, Soupy, and I wouldn't stress too much about Michael Moore. That's only one thing you have in common with him. You're also bipedal and speak English. Still not too much of a concern.

 

[breezynosacek]

Didn't you contradict yourself twice? I bolded your statement that says that you believe it doesn't matter which party you vote for, you still feel that either candidate could be the anti-Christ. Who is to say that Bush is not the anti-Christ? His party takes in money from pornographers, and VP Cheney's daughter is gay, as well as many other Republicans. If you truly want more sincere, conservative fundamentalist Christian morality in politics, I would go with the Constitution Party.

No, sweetie, I didn't say that either candidate could be the antichrist. I said that either way I vote isn't going to change the outcome of prophecy. That there will be a One World Government and a One World Religion and an anti-Christ.

So in light of prophecy, I am aware that there are those on both sides that might help that agenda along and I can't change that. I don't have a crystal ball to see which one will do that. What I can control is whether or not I vote my conscience on the issues that I can control. I can support a candidate that will not sacrifice children to Molech or any other god. I can support a candidate that believes in the sanctity of a Union between a man and a woman.

Yes, the Constitution party may be straight as an arrow...I don't know. I wouldn't consider voting for them because of one reason and one reason only.

If I use my vote for them, there is a good chance that the candidate who does support abortion, ect. could win. And we both know that minority political parties don't have a chance in hades of winning an election unless the candidates of both parties died simultaneously.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

No, sweetie, I didn't say that either candidate could be the antichrist. I said that either way I vote isn't going to change the outcome of prophecy. That there will be a One World Government and a One World Religion and an anti-Christ.

So in light of prophecy, I am aware that there are those on both sides that might help that agenda along and I can't change that. I don't have a crystal ball to see which one will do that. What I can control is whether or not I vote my conscience on the issues that I can control. I can support a candidate that will not sacrifice children to Molech or any other god. I can support a candidate that believes in the sanctity of a Union between a man and a woman.

Yes, the Constitution party may be straight as an arrow...I don't know. I wouldn't consider voting for them because of one reason and one reason only.

If I use my vote for them, there is a good chance that the candidate who does support abortion, ect. could win. And we both know that minority political parties don't have a chance in hades of winning an election unless the candidates of both parties died simultaneously.

So your conscience tells you to vote for the lesser evil? Funny, that's what I thought everybody did.

Also, Molech? Come on, that story is SO UNBELIEVABLY about idolatry and not abortion I don't even know where to begin.

 

[parousia70]

I said that either way I vote isn't going to change the outcome of prophecy. That there will be a One World Government and a One World Religion and an anti-Christ.

Care to elaborate?

The only prophesy I am aware of that fortells a "one world Government" and one world religion is Isaiah 9:6-7, and it speaks of the Government and religion of Christ.

Is that what you referr to?

As for an antichrist, I know of no prophesy about antichrist. St John, in his 1st and 2nd epistles cited that MANY antichrists had already arrived in his day, but it's hardly prophesy when it's written after the fact...

I vote my conscience on the issues that I can control. I can support a candidate that believes in the sanctity of a Union between a man and a woman.

So a candidate who would outlaw divorce, you'd support?

 

[hoser]

After many, many weeks of debating in my mind, I've come to a conclusion about our President: he stinks. Sorry to everyone that I voted for the guy. Politics aside, you just needed to watch Bush when he first hit the ground in Mississippi all 'ums' and 'uhs' to see the guy just isn't leadership material. But its not just that, that was just the straw that broke the camels back. His slander of the Minutemen, super-failure to do anything about our fuel crisis, endorsing renewal of the Patriot Act.......the list goes on. (Iraq isn't really that big a sore point for me, but thats for another topic.) As a Republican who voted for Bush, I feel obligated to continue to support the person I elected, but as a man, I have to call a spade a spade, swallow the pride and agree with what so many -even, God forgive me, Michael Moore-have said: Bush is the wrong man to be President. Now, I'll take all the 'I told you so's' from the Dems and the Left, I've made my bed and I will lie in it so fire away. Voting for Bush was a foolish move on my part, but I'd be even more of a fool if I kept supporting him. The writings on the wall with Bush, how ironic so many of the predominantly Chrisitian GOP can't read it. Just how far into hell are you people going to follow this guy?

BTW, taking down the Elephant icon. Posted this here instead of the GOP forums so non-Repubs could respond if they wanted too without worrying about being reported. I also encourage other Bush supporters to seriously re-think their position and ask themselves if they are just letting pride keep them hanging on. What's he doing thats so great, show me just one thing that he has done that is worthy of the deep devotion and defense he gets? Not being a liberal or a Democrat doesn't seem to quite cut it anymore.

So sad. With the exception of liberal like domestic spending (which the libs should love), he is a great president. So by not voting for Bush, but if you instead voted for Kerry, what would be better? Would energy prices be different? Would the hurricane not have hit? (I know that there are some wacko libs that believe that). BTW, if you agree with Michael Moore than I believe that you were never with it in the first place. You are a fraud.

 

[Nightson]

So sad. With the exception of liberal like domestic spending (which the libs should love),

Yes, we libs just love wasting money, in fact I think we should just burn it, burn it all.

he is a great president.

So by not voting for Bush, but if you instead voted for Kerry, what would be better?

Lets go back even farther, but yes.

Would energy prices be different?

At Kerry, probably only slightly, never put Bush in office, and yes.

Would the hurricane not have hit? (I know that there are some wacko libs that believe that).

No, we might have been better prepared for it, and I'm sure he would have handled it much better.

BTW, if you agree with Michael Moore than I believe that you were never with it in the first place. You are a fraud.

And you're not a true scotsman laddie.

 

[Smoke Screen]

So sad. With the exception of liberal like domestic spending (which the libs should love), he is a great president. So by not voting for Bush, but if you instead voted for Kerry, what would be better? Would energy prices be different? Would the hurricane not have hit? (I know that there are some wacko libs that believe that). BTW, if you agree with Michael Moore than I believe that you were never with it in the first place. You are a fraud.

"You're either with us or against us..."

 

[Sneezy]

The OP gives me hope.

Thank you, SoupySales.