Vanity - What is a Bushbot?

[gondramB]

I got called a Bushbot again yesterday - its happening more and more. Now this particular person wants machine gun nests set up at the border to kill anyone who crosses and he sees all foreign trade as evil and thinks the President is trying to end U.S. sovereignty and when he calls me a Freeper he means it as a bad thing... So I'm not too worried about his opinion but it got me thinking...

In a lot of ways I'm more conservative than President Bush - I don't think he places enough importance on controlling spending, border security or dealing with existing illegals. I don't think he has vetoed as much as he should have.

Sometimes I differ on what the President thinks is conservative, for example with evolution or privacy - I'm big on science, individual rights and limits on government.

In some areas, like holding the country together after 9/11 and dealing with Afghanistan, judicial appointments, trade and opposing abortion Presient Bush has done a great job - not perfect but no President is perfect.

I don't think we went into Iraq at the right time in the right way. I don't bring this up much because we are at war now - there is nothing to be gained by complaining about how we went into Iraq - we are there and it needs to be a national effort to see the job through, support our troops and leave a stable Iraq that isn't a threat.

I'm starting to think that a Bushbot is a conservative who, even though he sometimes disagrees with the President continues to support our commander in chief in time of war and who is darn glad he's the President instead of Kerry.

I guess there are worse things to be called.

[gondramB]

>>I generally agree with your sentiments as expressed in the original post. I don't consider myself a Bushbot, but by those standards, I would qualify.<<

Ironic, isn't it?

[WhiteGuy]

I'm starting to think that a Bushbot is a conservative who, even though he sometimes disagrees with the President continues to support our commander in chief in time of war and who is darn glad he's the President instead of Kerry.

yeah,

IMHO a "bushbot" "might" be to bush...................

What lewinski was to clinton.

Even if the "act" itself was only imaginary, or "wishful thinking"

Is it the "fantasy" element that makes the true "bushbot" either male or female, what they truly are?

Of course, the true description of a "bushbot" should be defined only by those who apply the label to themselves.......................................right?.....

Does "conservatism" really come into play at all? (no pun intended)

[trisham]

But the term seems to be applied more and more to conservative who disagre with him, think things through and then make a decision not to attack the President while we are at war and he is under attack from liberals.

**************

Agreed. There are those who see a lack of criticism as an endorsement of all that President Bush does. I don't agree with everything that he has done, but I'm not going to publicly criticize him. If that makes me a bush-bot, or appear to be a bush-bot, so be it.

[muawiyah]

Don't worry about being called a Bushbot. Most of the folks who do that are secretly Islamofascist supporters.

[nevergore]

Yep...but that deal didn't have them controlling the ports....only some of the terminal operations at some of the ports...staffed with teamsters and american management....

[gondramB]

Me: I don't think we went into Iraq at the right time in the right way.

ACG: Hi G, what would you consider the right time and right way?

-------

Short answer: I don't think we should invade a country in the name of the U.N. based on a U.N. resolution when the U.N. has made it clear they do not support us or feel they have authorized us to act in their name. In a case like that we should either do it our own, based on American principles or not do it at all.

Long answer: I'm not going into the long answer because I don't want to detract focus from supporting the President and the troops until the job is done. When the war is over we can Monday morning quarterback.

And that is a perfect example of how I get called a Bushbot from both the left and the right even though I'm not doing anything robot-like.

I am not mindlessly following the President. I am making a conscience decision to support our commander in chief, in spite of differences, because its the right thing to do.

[gondramB]

Mike: >>I just ignore people like that.

1%ers get ignored by everyone else, I wouldn't worry if they are calling you names :)<<

Generally very good advice. But I wanted to post to see how others here are feeling and reacting.

[gondramB]

KC: >>I don't think that is true at all. The great majority of people who disagreed with Bush on specific policies, have almost unwavering support for the war on terror and other areas.<<

Yes, certainly the President's poll numbers remain highest on the WOT.

Do you think this is mainly an online phenomenon I am seeing or at least the effect is amplified online and on political boards? I mean, certainly some of the people who have responded to this thread seem to have experienced similar reactions online.

[gondramB]

WG: >> Of course, the true description of a "bushbot" should be defined only by those who apply the label to themselves.......................................right?.....

Does "conservatism" really come into play at all? (no pun intended)<<

Forgive me if I dwell in depth on the pun...

Does anybody ever self apply a label like that? Certainly people who work for the President have an obligation to support his policies but hopefully those policies are formed after internal debate and only after the President decides p[olicy does everyone stick to one line.

When that doesn't happen - like when you could tell that Colin Powell didn't believe the policy he was supposed to be carrying out it is painful to watch and makes the administration look weak.

[x]

It sounds like you're not a "Bushbot," and your friend maligned you. But that doesn't mean that there may not be people out there who fit the description.

What matters is whether your support is knee-jerk or thoughtfully realistic.

In any case, when debates no longer focus on the issues at hand and reach the "you're just a _____" stage, it's a parting shot that indicates that the discussion isn't going anywhere.

[gondramB]

Trisham: "Agreed. There are those who see a lack of criticism as an endorsement of all that President Bush does. I don't agree with everything that he has done, but I'm not going to publicly criticize him. If that makes me a bush-bot, or appear to be a bush-bot, so be it."

Logic tells me that is correct - but I have a negative emotional reaction to the term - I'm glad to be hearing how other Freepers feel and react.

[WhiteGuy]

Does anybody ever self apply a label like that?

unclear.............

I have heard that there are a number of posters here on FR who call themselves "bushbots" .................

unknown if it is true........................

[gondramB]

>>Don't worry about being called a Bushbot. Most of the folks who do that are secretly Islamofascist supporters.<<

The extremists from the left who suport Castro and Chaze, I agree.

But what about the people who have genuine conservative credentials - I just can't write them off as people who don't support the country - I just think they are wrong on this.

[gondramB]

X : >>It sounds like you're not a "Bushbot," and your friend maligned you. But that doesn't mean that there may not be people out there who fit the description.

What matters is whether your support is knee-jerk or thoughtfully realistic.

In any case, when debates no longer focus on the issues at hand and reach the "you're just a _____" stage, it's a parting shot that indicates that the discussion isn't going anywhere.<<

Thank you. Wise words.

[A CA Guy]

Short answer: I don't think we should invade a country in the name of the U.N. based on a U.N. resolution when the U.N. has made it clear they do not support us or feel they have authorized us to act in their name. In a case like that we should either do it our own, based on American principles or not do it at all.

We didn't invade a country in the name of the UN, that is ridiculous.
Saddam tried to execute a President and was known to be funding terrorism outside of Iraq against an ally we are under treaty to defend. It was in our interest to removed the man as part of an ongoing WOT and all here on FR would say the UN was a hindrance more than anything in everything surrounding Saddam.

We try to follow the UN stuff to some extent so we don't end up coming off like a nation of loose canons to the rest of the world officially.
By the way, can you name any successful UN resolutions that have formed a peace anywhere? I can't right off the top of my head.

What is your definition of going on the RIGHT WAY? If you were the big general, what would you do when considering the world wide implications of actions?
PS, I don't think you or anyone here would be putting down an effort or troops by expressing opinions, I think we can handle frank and honest discussions... :-)

[Michael Goldsberry]

Mike, on the other hand, you can count on to be right 99.9% of the time.

(And woe to the troll who tangles with that cat!)

[muawiyah]

There are false Conservatives. What I said.

[gondramB]

See, that's exactly where I am not going.. and how I take some flack from both sides.

But I think supporting the President at this point whether or not I agreed with process that led us here is the right thing to do.

[RSmithOpt]

Better to be a Bushbot than a Klintoon intern.

[A CA Guy]

Well I have a real problem that you started a discussion thread where you brought up the issue and then won't discuss it.
Do you think your own views are that radical that you can not say them?
If so, why start a DISCUSSION thread like this?

What is the RIGHT TIME & WAY in your view and does any of your personal views have to do with the benefit of hindsight?

I think some of the biggest obstacles to fighting against Islamic terror is:

#1 In school, seems most Islamic nations educate their kids into racism and Jihad.
#2 That some of the money from oil profits in the Middle East backwash to fund Jihad.
#3 That we are not fighting a religious war and Jihadists are.
#4 That they are willing to hit any target and we are to self restrained by only picking PC military targets.
#5 That terrorist use funding from leaders that approve of Jihad to buy influence by funding life in places like Afghanistan and now Lebanon with the Hezbolah.
#6 That we are an open and trusting people, so we trust too much and our country is safer, but still ripe for terror attacks.
#7 That our nation allows too much consideration for other peoples and culture. We should make it understood there is one America and there is not a multilingual America where Muslims will ever be allowed to have any Islamic law govern people in any city of America ever.

IMO we will get hit again hard and THEN the borders will be secured as a priority and those who trust will not trust as much again for a good long while.

Not all Muslims are terrorist, but almost all terrorist have been Muslims, so MUSLIM is a legitimate profile.