Support for President Bush by Location

Originally Posted by LionHarted

If you're an American and you don't support your own President, you are a fool. Just a thought. That's like trying to live but not supporting your heart. The executive branch is the heart of the nation, and you have to live with yours, however inefficient or annoying or whatever else it may be. I'm not asking you to be happy. I'm just asking you to suck it up.

Not everyone's going to support the president, we all have different views. It doesn't mean that we're mutinous or anything, it just means that we don't support the ASANINE (sp?) decisions he is making.

*ahem*

I just think it's stupid that after four years of moronic decisions, war because of 'OMFGWEAPONSOFMASSDESTRUCTIONBOMBTHEIRASSES' 'Oops... Guess not.', and his failure to react properly at 9/11 (My Pet Goat, anyone?) HE GETS RE-ELECTED.

Maybe I've been influenced by my parents, who are very firm Independants, but whenever I hear someone say that what he's doing is best for our country, I want to scream.

Originally posted by LionHarted
If you're an American and you don't support your own President, you are a fool. Just a thought.

Wow, thank you blatantly insulting me and 16 other members here on the board, simply because we have opinions different from his

To put it quite plainly, politics, as an institution, could be considered atheism, which is a form of religion.

So... politics IS a religion.

Besides, without religion, there ARE no politics, since everyone would then have the same beliefs.

Almost all people have opinions and beliefs with politics, a great number have no opinion or belief in religion. If you put too much religion in your politics, which you're leading, you're going to be displeasing a great number of people.

So I'm not allowed to disagree with anything that the President may say or do? I mean, isn't the whole point of freedom of speech is to disagree (to a point, at least) with somebodys views, even if it is politics?

You may disagree with him as you wish. But if EVERYONE who disagreed with him either violently opposed him or removed their support from him, this country would fall to pieces.

Not everyone's going to support the president, we all have different views. It doesn't mean that we're mutinous or anything, it just means that we don't support the ASANINE (sp?) decisions he is making.

Well, when he's already made an asinine decision, your non-participation and lack of support is not a hindrance to his continuing to follow through with it, but merely a hindrance to his getting the job done. If people, say, aren't happy with the Iraq war, does protesting stop people from being killed? No. Would supporting the war effort help end the war faster? Yes.

Is there any logic in making a bad situation worse by not supporting the effort to finish it?

NO.

I just think it's stupid that after four years of moronic decisions, war because of 'OMFGWEAPONSOFMASSDESTRUCTIONBOMBTHEIRASSES' 'Oops... Guess not.', and his failure to react properly at 9/11 (My Pet Goat, anyone?) HE GETS RE-ELECTED.

You have to remember that his opponent would likely not have reacted to 9/11 at all, and even if he did, he would never have stuck to any particular approach. I'd rather a President carry out the inevitable for a stupid reason than a President refuse to carry out the inevitable because he can't decide on a reason.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Almost all people have opinions and beliefs with politics, a great number have no opinion or belief in religion. If you put too much religion in your politics, which you're leading, you're going to be displeasing a great number of people.

If you remove religious beliefs and morals from all aspects of politics, you are left with lots of politics and no morals.

Originally Posted by Nox

Of course he did. I always thought that it was Donald Rumsfeld that started the war.

No. It was the evil jews of that colonial slave state Israel that started the war!

Originally Posted by Arha

No. It was the evil jews of that colonial slave state Israel that started the war!

No. It was a detonated bomb that started the war.

To be honest, sometimes I just say I support Bush just because people don't. We're stuck with him til 2008, so you might as well support him, so you don't agree with his ideals (well, guess what? I don't either, but I still support him.) To be honest, I could give a **** less what people outside of America think about Bush, it isn't their country, not to mention about 80% of people dislike Bush because it's the cool thing to do. Honestly.

I still wonder what would happen if Kerry won the election. Saddam would still be piling bodies on mass graves, still running his uber-fascist government.

I will support Bush until his service ends. We're stuck with him, might as well put up with it. Asshats.

Originally posted by LionHarted
If you remove religious beliefs and morals from all aspects of politics, you are left with lots of politics and no morals.

I never said removing morals, you can have no religion and still have morals. You misunderstood what I said. Involving your religion too much itself in politics while leading it is foolish, because you're going to piss off a great deal of people, not so much with just saying what you believe. Bush involves his religion too much in his leadership, a perfect example is by completely banning gay marriage. He's not allowing people to have the rite to be with who they love because he doesn't believe in it, because he's of the Christian religion. Church and State have been split for a good reason, Bush ignores that. Why should he care anyways? The marriage by the state isn't religious, it has nothing to do with the type of marriage we Christians have and believe in.

I am an American and I do not support President Bush.

I'm 21 years old and I am old enough to vote, so I can like or dislike who I want. Bush is a poor leader in my opinion. I'll never support him or his piss poor excuses for an unnecessary war. I pray and I support every member of our armed forces but that does not mean that I support the war and the man that called for it.

Bush has a complete disregard for the environment and has wrongly led this nation to a lengthy war. His Christian stance on political hot topics such as gay marriage and abortion got him in office. Conservative Christian voters should have focused on the topics that are truly important to the U.S. and voted with the real issues in mind and not who could marry. There were many more important topics than those that rabid conservative Christians lamented over. There's a time and a place for religion and it's not in politics.

it isn't their country,

I think of out relationship as similar to an ant next to an elephant.

We care when the elephant rolls over, not that you care what we think of it.

"Roll the other way!" we say, but to no avail. The ant gets squashed.

Okay, so I worded my post wrong.

What I meant to say, was that since they live in a seperate country, they can't really see things exactly the way Americans see them, so there can be exceptions, seeing as there isn't much to understand about the Bush administration. It has a lot more impact on our country, and we feel it more when stuff happens because of it (like 9/11). Though I can guarantee there were quite a few people who were happy that day, which is terrible, but I think it's true. I can see someone from another country having an opinion about Bush, it's just..weird for me to have people from other countries criticize our government when they aren't even living in it.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Church and State have been split for a good reason, Bush ignores that. Why should he care anyways? The marriage by the state isn't religious, it has nothing to do with the type of marriage we Christians have and believe in.

As I said elsewhere a while ago:

Amendment I

Ratified on 12/15/1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

None of that says they are to be disallowed from having religious principles among elected officials. It simply says that "establishments of religion" ie. churches, mosques, synagogues and such, along with their associated groups shall not receive federal support. It doesn't even bar states from supporting them, though all states have similar proscriptions against the activity.

The "or prohibit the free excercise thereof" would seem to suggest just the opposite about whether religious principles can enter a political forum. You cannot arbitrarily deny something because of the messenger and certainly cannot use the coercive force of the state to prevent it being spoken in any applicable capacity. That would be the truest definition of censorship.

You just got baptiz'd!

I never said that it was law that Church and State should not be joined, I simply said that Church and State are separated for good reason, that being that together they cause great trouble and people who are not religion and are a part of the state will not agree with any religiously-backed opinions and actions brought into politics and state. Bush ignores that he's causing an enormous ruckus and hate in his country by bringing his religious ideas into politics. He must understand that not everyone is of his religion, and that pretty much running his country through his religion is going to displease a very large chunk of the population. He doesn't understand that

Next time worry less about a swarm of big words and fancy sentences, and more about what I'm actually saying, okay hun?

EDIT-

I did make a lil minor of an error though, in implying that Church and State meant all beliefs and such, not what I meant. I used the wrong phrase, basically.

It's terrible that you are incapable of reading or forming an opinion apart from what the local talking head blathers at you. Really, it makes me cry Bosnian tears of emotion.

As an aside: What manner of secret divination informs you of what he understands or "doesn't understand" which the rest of the world cannot discover. I suggest marketing this amazing talent or, at least, dumping it somewhere useful. Say, can you pick stocks with that power too?

You going to actually reply to my points or just keep mocking me?

I am not guided by any human being on my opinions, I chose to believe anything I do on my own. I, myself, chose the belief that Bush should not incorporate his religious ideas in his leadership as much as he does because he's being rather unfair to many citizens and obviously displeasing them without the slightest care

I'm sensing a lot of spite from you about me. Have I been a bad boy lately or something?

EDIT-

As an aside: What manner of secret divination informs you of what he understands or "doesn't understand" which the rest of the world cannot discover.

Simple, personal exagerration my dear, and that I don't expect most people to continue jeering at me for simple things like that

I am American and I support Bush.

I support him because of my surroundings, I'll admit, but also because I remember September 11th vividly. We weren't attacking anyone. We were leaving them alone. And they hate us even under those conditions. I had to sit with the trumpet section practicing a piece while the other band students sat and watched the towers fall. You can't blame Bush for starting the War on Terror: They couldn't have found a better way to get the Jihad they wanted. And I respect him for continuing to fight these fanatics in the face of no public support.

I'd just like to say something. I admit willingly I have no links to back me up (my computer died in '04 and took my bookmarks with it). But I distinctly remember reading that the intelligence on Iraq's WMD was substantially British - it was supported by corresponding American intelligence. I also think he knows a lot more than he could feasibly tell the public for security reasons. Why else rush into Iraq because of potential WMD violations we had condoned for years? And when there were no WMD, you don't just go "Oops, sorry," prop up the old government and leave. You should support a new government so that you won't have to worry about breaking laws or fighting UN Inspectors. And if you think the occupation has no terror relation, then you explain the bombings on civlians and military, in Iraq taking place almost daily.

I am not immature enough to think I'm smarter than he is or could do his job better. I trust his judgement and the abilities of the incredible people working in all the various branches and positions around him. I'd go so far as to say that all the intelligence of every ZU member combined would be matched or superceded easily by the combined intelligence of a handful of top government officials of America (or Canada or Europe/EU etc). These guys are qualified, despite what you might think. Political leanings in the way you don't approve of don't translate to lack of capability.

I just give him the benefit of the doubt. I would've at least tried to have done the same for Kerry if he were president, no matter what I think of him.

Thank you.

Sept 11th = Afghanistan terrorists.

War on Iraq = ???

Admitting your mistake will make you look bad, sure, but it sure beats the Hell out of wasting resources, time, and lives. "Finding WMD" is very much different than "Liberating Iraqis". I still fail to see how these two things can be related to each other close enough for America to change its goal so fluently.

okay hun?

Sure. I'm easily confused and stupid, just like women are.

You going to actually reply to my points

Okay, your points:
1. You, by your own admission, are defending a position you admit it was a mistake to have made. You even claim it was a typo. Then continue harping on the same subject.
2. Refuse to acknowledge contrary viewpoints even when backed by logical assertion.
3. State, repeatedly, an unsubstantiated opinion and proclaim it a "point" to mask the fact that you have offered no examples of the claimed behavior.

So far you have no points. You have an opinion which refuses to change regardless of the facts presented, and which you continue to defend despite your own admission that it was a mistake. There can be no reasonable argument with that attitude. You give an aura of religious ferver to your declarations that Bush is a failure by acting in this manner towards a real debate.

Find an example for your claim and there will be a "point" to debate. Until then you're just another fundamentalist preacher shouting at nothing.

Sept 11th = Afghanistan terrorists.

War on Iraq = ???

Close! Nice try, A+ for effort and penmanship!

Sept 11th = Islamic extremists based in Afghanistan but with cells far and wide.

War on Iraq = religious and political extremists that have pledged themselves to Osama and his cause, and even some from the Afghanistan group who think they'll do more for their cause in Iraq than in the Afghan mountains. I know we didn't invade Iraq because of terrorists - we invaded because we thought lives were threatened by WMDs. But terrorism is there now, and we're fighting it, and they're fighting the establishment of the same type of government they tried to shake and splinter on September 11th. Except this time, it's right in their backyard. Neither time has Bush backed down, and that is yet another reason why I continue to give him my support.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Arha
Sure. I'm easily confused and stupid, just like women are.

Meh, whatever you say and feel

Okay, your points:
1. You, by your own admission, are defending a position you admit it was a mistake to have made. You even claim it was a typo. Then continue harping on the same subject.

I never harped on that specific subject after I made the edit. That, and it's a rather different topic actually. When I said Church and State being seperated, I *according to exactly what I wrote* implied that what Bush was doing was an infraction within our laws. What I was truly meaning to say was that what Bush is doing is very much angering a great deal of America, and in a way, isn't fair to those it affects *i.e, gay couples* Bush brought his religion into his leadership in a rather, radical way. Law breaking? No. Trouble-making? Yeah

2. Refuse to acknowledge contrary viewpoints even when backed by logical assertion.

...because I don't agree with it? According to the definition of acknowledge, you're saying that I view them as null, even when 'backed by logical assertion'. This logical assertion never proved my points wrong though...

3. State, repeatedly, an unsubstantiated opinion and proclaim it a "point" to mask the fact that you have offered no examples of the claimed behavior.

I gave a very good example before, on a subject relatively the same, you just got too confused by the Church and State law-hoo ha-mix up

So far you have no points. You have an opinion which refuses to change regardless of the facts presented, and which you continue to defend despite your own admission that it was a mistake. There can be no reasonable argument with that attitude. You give an aura of religious ferver to your declarations that Bush is a failure by acting in this manner towards a real debate.

These 'facts' haven't proven anything of my points wrong. I've argued with you for like what, five posts? One of yours was a real argument which I countered, the rest was just you mocking me

Let me make it clear one final time, maybe you'll get it now-

I made the mistake in typing the Church and State crap. I implied the fact of how Bush is unfairly displeasing a great deal of Americans by bringing his religious beliefs too much into his leadership *i.e, completely banning gay marriage*

Find an example for your claim and there will be a "point" to debate. Until then you're just another fundamentalist preacher shouting at nothing.

Because you didn't understand anything I said, and my example from before was the same for my true beliefs, I've never been 'just another fundamentalist preacher shouting at nothing'

Originally Posted by Mirren

What I was truly meaning to say was that what Bush is doing is very much angering a great deal of America, and in a way, isn't fair to those it affects *i.e, gay couples* Bush brought his religion into his leadership in a rather, radical way. Law breaking? No. Trouble-making? Yeah

I made the mistake in typing the Church and State crap. I implied the fact of how Bush is unfairly displeasing a great deal of Americans by bringing his religious beliefs too much into his leadership *i.e, completely banning gay marriage*

Maybe you failed completely at American History, but to reiterate: for the entire history of the United States of America gay marriage has been banned. To "ban it completely" is neither new nor radical. It is the norm. The idea was unthinkable until just five years ago and beaten down every time by the elected officials in government. How is that "radical?"

Find an example of radical religious action. Prove it. You made the claim. Evidence it. The burden is on you.