Replies

My experience on this forum has led me to the following conclusions:

1. If you have differing opinions re: some of President Bush's actions/policies, but overall, support him, you are a Bush-bot.

2. If you have differing opinions re: some of President Bush's actions/policies, and thus cannot support him, you are a Bush-Basher.

3. If you 100% support all of President Bush's actions/policies, you are a Bush-bot.

4. If you 100% disagree with all of President Bush's actions/policies, you are a Bush-basher.

There is a HUGE disconnect here in logic. And yes, I see MORE of the generalized, broad-brush tactics and ALL IS LOST attitude from the Bush-bashers. Expecting the candidate to be a GOD is MUCH more prevalent, imo, on the Bush-basher side.

I have consistently seen the 'constituitionalists', big and little "L" libertarians, as Bush-Bashers. And they seem to attempt to portray themselves as 'above' those who can't see the their issues. VIABLE alternatives/solutions, that are reality-based, are not forthcoming from this faction. Beyond the extremes who WISH for the Dems to win and thus hurry along the distruction of America..all we get are their stated intent to vote against ANY Democrat and Republican. Most of their postions are doom and gloom based and rely on fear and paranoia to advance their cause.

On the Bush-bot side, I HAVE seen more positive, can-do, one-step at a time attitudes espoused. I don't think this is accidental or naive. I think it is a solution-oriented attitude that IS more reality based. They do NOT expect a reincarnation of a GOD as a candidate. In most cases, no single issue is going to dissuade them from the goal-line.

The difference between these two factions is glaring to me.

"There is a HUGE disconnect here in logic."

Agreed.

"Expecting the candidate to be a GOD is MUCH more prevalent, imo, on the Bush-basher side."

While low expectations and small aspirations are the hallmark of the bushbots.

It's really the same principle that governs primary education. Students will descend to low expectations, and rise to higher.

"VIABLE alternatives/solutions, that are reality-based, are not forthcoming from this faction."

Who gets to decide what is "viable"? Perhaps opinions of what is or is not "viable" are merely self-fulfilling prophecies.

What future is there for freedom if even its self-described champions think getting it sooner rather than later is impractical or not "viable"?

Tomorrow is always a day away.