Replies

With all due respect, and this isn't intended to assign blame to you, the term 'Bushbot' was not born out of a desire by folks to trash Bush 100%, or a particular desire to offend our fellow forum participants. You may not have been attacked by these people, but I was out of the blue a number of times for making rather simple objections. I believe the term was coined before the election in 2000 even took place. This place was a zoo that year, Bush people trying to play whack-a-mole with anyone who raised their head that didn't toe "the BushBot" party line. It was disgusting.

I'm willing to admit it if I have tweaked people, but some of these objections were laughable. Around 2004, I had one person bring up things that had happened back in 1999 and 2000, who wasn't even on the forum until years after that time frame. A simple objection to Bush policy, was met with a go for the throat attitude time and again. So please, don't act as if there wasn't some sort of a tag team enforcement mecanism in play here.

Most of us on this forum supported Bush to one extent or another. Where we could support him, we did. Where we couldn't, we objected and explained why.

So when this wasn't good enough for the Bush supporters, and they just dug in their heels and refused to admit under any circumstances that he was making a mistake, and vicous attacks continued, someone coined the term 'BushBot'. This didn't happen in a void without cause.

Ad hominem? You know better than that. You are aware of the history that has transpired here. There was a problem, and it finally resulted in a big blow-out at one point. So I'm not the only person who thought it was a real problem.

I haven't said that Bush didn't do anything right. I have said that his overall peformance was downright destructive to our cause. Any time you open a path for either a McCain or an Obama to follow you, you haven't done your job. Neither of them were fit to hold the office of the Presidency, and if Bush had been pounding away at Conservating legislation and principles like he should have, McCain would have been instantly recognizable for the RINO fool that he was.

Bush had eight years to demand action to avoid the economic meltdown we experienced. He had a Republican Congress long enough to do it, but he didn't. For the first time in my life, we had a real window of opportunity to effect a roll back of liberalism. Sadly, it just didn't happen.

As for the judges you mentioned, one of them was only appointed after we attacked Bush viciously for a laughable nomination he made in the first place.

We would not be where we are today, if not for George Bush. The national deficit climbed 87% under him. And yet, folks still try to make people who criticize him out to be the bad guys.

How low would this nation have to go, before an (R) president could be justifiably criticized? I can't image, if the situation on January 20th, 2009, and our current situation isn't justification enough. Yes, Obama has made things worse, but it is just unconcionable what our guy handed off.

“As for the judges you mentioned, one of them was only appointed after we attacked Bush viciously for a laughable nomination he made in the first place.”

Roberts was his first pick and a great one.

“We would not be where we are today, if not for George Bush”

Yes... things could be better ... OR worse. Al Gore is an idiot and an exaggerator who thinks cars are more dangerous than nukes.
I kid you not, we’d be in a world of hurt if Gore was president on 9/11... then again, we might be right now in Mccain’s term ... how much fun would that be?