Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Do Bush supporters have a political ideology?

Politics-American Bush Supporters Ideologies

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#61 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 03:10 PM

The topic is, to quote the subheading, is "Do Bush supporters have a political ideology?, Are they conservatives or personality cultists?"

Now I could take offense at this, or I could discuss the personality cult surrounding Bill Clinton. And it certainly resembles a cult at abortion rallies. I know, I know.  Democrats are so used to thinking of pro-lifers and Bush-supporters as cultists, that it's a slap across the face to see their beloved people spoken of in the same terms.

But it's not off-topic.

-Ogami

#62 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 04:31 PM

View PostOgami, on Mar 5 2006, 08:10 PM, said:

The topic is, to quote the subheading, is "Do Bush supporters have a political ideology?, Are they conservatives or personality cultists?"

Now I could take offense at this, or I could discuss the personality cult surrounding Bill Clinton. And it certainly resembles a cult at abortion rallies. I know, I know.  Democrats are so used to thinking of pro-lifers and Bush-supporters as cultists, that it's a slap across the face to see their beloved people spoken of in the same terms.

But it's not off-topic.

-Ogami

Well, this is a classic dodge:  "But Bill Clinton did it tooooooo!  Clinton's followers did it tooooooooo!"  Deflect it onto Clinton to avoid the topic at hand.  Except there was no personality cult surrounding Bill Clinton and there are no abortion rallies.  There was a lot of criticism of Clinton from liberals and progressives during the 1990s.  Clinton isn't even very liberal.

I do recall the guy had high popularity ratings (I'm not crazy about him myself).  But that is not the same thing as having a personality cult.  Reagan had high popularity ratings, too, and there was certainly no Reagan personality cult.  I believe conservatives favored Reagan because he was closer to traditional conservative ideals: he favored smaller government, for example.

The topic is this--why would a conservative follow a president who rejects the ideals that true conservatives hold sacred?  A true conservative--who follows conservative ideals, not leaders--wouldn't be afraid to ask this question.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#63 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 04:45 PM

Quote

The topic is this--why would a conservative follow a president who rejects the ideals that true conservatives hold sacred? A true conservative--who follows conservative ideals, not leaders--wouldn't be afraid to ask this question.

Or to answer it.
Posted Image

#64 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 11:26 AM

Quote

And given the deadly sexual diseases one can get when that condom fails, not to mention the diseases the other methods let slip through, it really is best not to rely on abortion or condoms as contraception, is it?

First, nice red herring you've brought up.  We've gone from talking about birth control to talking about disease control... but, o' course, that's all in a thread that started out having nothing to do with either.  But, in any case, if one's going to have sex - which many people do - then it's better to use a condom or one of the other methods I mentioned as a form of birth control.  If you're worried about disease and birth control, then a condom is your best bet, if you're having sex.  

Also, since you brought that up, if someone has deadly sexual diseases, then it's especially important not to be breeding children who would be born with those diseases, no?  

Quote

Monagamy and abstinence work a whole let better than ripping a person out of a womb or taking anti-HIV drugs after the fact.

Abstinence is great.  It works best for ugly people who don't have the option of getting laid, anyway, but, it's fine.  It's understandably not very popular, though, so it's better to have birth control options instead of allowing the church to impose martial law.  If we're to have a country where the terrorists can continue "hating us for our freedoms," that is.  Monogamy is also great - I'm straightedge, so I fully endorse it myself.   But monogamy isn't a method of birth control - even when you're monogamus, you may not want to have babies, and that's why I still use condoms when I'm engaging in some o' dat monogamy.  Besides that, just because I like monogamy doesn't mean I get to choose for everyone else. Which is why it's important to have birth control methods available.  


Quote

Which just torpedoes your entire opening sentence: "This is so incredibly overblown and ridiculous on the face of it that I'm frankly surprised you're not embarrassed to say such things."

Not hardly. :)  What you said that was ridiculous is that people are advocating abortion as the first choice in contraception.  I absolutely destroyed, annihiliated, and laid waste to your argument by pointing out that a whooooooooole lot more condoms are sold than there are abortions performed.  I don't think even you would want to try to deny that fact.  Which is why you didn't try to deny it and clumsily attempted to change the original topic under discussion to be about disease risks... followed by a declaration that you you "torpedoed" something.   Even if we went with the red herring, you've only shot yourself in the foot further, because I'd daresay that more people practice  abstinence (and monogamy, if you somehow want to try to count that as a birth-control method) than there are abortions being performed, either... which further proves that abortion isn't being pushed as the first choice in contraception.


Let me try to illustrate this, to help you avoid making such debate mistakes in the future.  Suppose you make a statement like "Celery is the most popular snack food in the United States."   Now, that's obviously wrong - as wrong as "people want abortion to become the preferred method of birth control."

Someone counters you with "Celery is not the most popular snack food.  There are 80 Twinkies sold to every celery stalk.  Heck, even carrot sales are higher than celery."

If you counter with, "Ha HA, but Twinkies are much more fattening, while celery is good for you!  So, wham, I have destroyed your argument!"  then, sorry, you have not destroyed the argument - you've introduced a side issue of which is more fattening or better for you... which you could have a chance of being right about, but the original argument was about which was more popular.  This sort of tactic doesn't fool anyone, but you seem to try it quite a bit.

Quote

Oopsie!

Indeed.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#65 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 11:31 AM

Actually, you did the same thing yourself, by comparing an item that's used once per time its users have sex with a thing that's done once per time its customers become pregnant, knowing that sex happens more often than pregnancies do.

#66 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 12:33 PM

Quote

Actually, you did the same thing yourself, by comparing an item that's used once per time its users have sex with a thing that's done once per time its customers become pregnant, knowing that sex happens more often than pregnancies do.

Not really.  See, he said abortion was the preferred method of birth control.   It's not.   Each time you have sex, you have to choose a method.  I'm more people use condoms to avoid the risk, rather than just saying "If a pregnancy happens, we'll abort it."  Even if you don't want to go by condom sales, we can still go by number of condom users as opposed to number of abortions performed.

Every time I've had sex, I've used protection.  I know a lot of people who are a whole lot more promiscuous than me, and they all use protection.  I only know one person who's had an abortion, and that's because she was raped.   Even when it's legal, it's difficult to get abortions.  You have to find doctors willing to perform it, and few people would want to get such a procedure done, both from moral grounds and fear of being operated on.   The number of people who try to avoid having to go through that vastly outnumber the people who get them done.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#67 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 09:47 PM

Zwolf666 said:

Abstinence is great. It works best for ugly people who don't have the option of getting laid, anyway, but, it's fine.

I don't appreciate this smart-aleck comment, Z. It reminds me of the nasty comments to the effect that women would only be feminists or lesbians if they're too ugly for men to want them. :censored:

I could comment further, but... should just go away again. :silenced:
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#68 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 01:36 AM

I will say at the very least it is a very unkind comment Z, and very hurtfull to those who might consider themselves plain, ugly, unwanted, undesired/able - for what ever reason, be they right or wrong about their assessment.

Abstinence works best for those who choose it...
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#69 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 09:12 AM

Sorry if my comment was ill-chosen or offensive.  I wasn't intending it to mean that was the only reason anyone would choose abstinence.  

And as far as the feminists or lesbians thing goes, I definitely never said that.  I've known some feminists and lesbians who could have any man they wanted.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#70 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 09 March 2006 - 01:51 PM

I will add that Bush supporters seem to jump through hoops to justify their loyalty, even as the scandals mount.  Any criticism of Bush is obviously a manifestation of inner hate (so say many Limbaugh/Coulter fans), and therefore they try to discredit the message by attacking the messenger.  Plamegate is a perfect example.  "Joe Wilson is a partisan Democrat and his wife wasn't covert, so nyah!"  Except that Wilson voted for George H.W. Bush and has supported Republicans and Democrats alike.  And according to the CIA and court documents, Valerie Plame was indeed covert.  Oooooooooops!!!  

Even when critics of Bush policy include other Republicans and former administration officials, the loyalists find an excuse to circle the wagons around the Dear Leader.  Journalist extrordinaire Dave Neiwert addresses this on his blog.

Quote

Paul O'Neill? Oh, he's just trying to sell a book. Nevermind that his description of Bush as incurious and insular, not to mention incompetent, played out before the nation during the Katrina disaster.

Richard Clarke? Just an embittered loser with an agenda (and a book to sell too!). Nevermind that his concern that the Iraq invasion would be a disastrous diversion from the serious pursuit of a real "war on terrorism" is proving all the more accurate every day.

Brent Scowcroft? Please. He just lives in a pre-9/11 world still.

Bruce Bartlett? Just another disgruntled ex-employee.

Nevermind that all these "Bush haters" are people who have long histories of distinguished service under Republican adminstrations, people who have real credibility on the subjects they're addressing. And all people dismissed with yet another wave of the ad hominem wand.

Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#71 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 March 2006 - 02:33 PM

Call Me Robin wrote:

The topic is this--why would a conservative follow a president who rejects the ideals that true conservatives hold sacred? A true conservative--who follows conservative ideals, not leaders--wouldn't be afraid to ask this question.

I could say the same thing about Pro-Abortion Democrats who stuck with Bill Clinton even though he famously remarked that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare."

Imagine the insane shrieking that would be going on if Bush (or a Bush-nominated Federal judge) said that very same thing. We all know what the reaction would be, Robin, my statement on Democrats and their Clinton personality cult stands.

-Ogami

#72 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 March 2006 - 02:37 PM

Zwolf wrote:

Abstinence is great. It works best for ugly people who don't have the option of getting laid, anyway, but, it's fine.

A round of applause for Zwolf, everyone! This is all he has ever brought to any discussion we have ever had.

Approaching Zwolf's delightful riposte at face value (a burdensome task), I assume this means that President Bush is ugly. After all, he has only had sex with the same woman for several decades. Unlike the previous occupant of the White House. :)

-Ogami

#73 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 11 March 2006 - 04:25 PM

Quote

Abstinence is great. It works best for ugly people who don't have the option of getting laid, anyway, but, it's fine.

Norville, "people" refers to both genders as far as I know.  And it's possible to be "too ugly to get laid" in ways that have nothing to do with appearance.  One could, for instance, be a  foul-mouthed,  arrogant, vindictive, narcissistic drunk.  :)
Posted Image

#74 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 11 March 2006 - 04:30 PM

Quote

Imagine the insane shrieking that would be going on if Bush (or a Bush-nominated Federal judge) said that very same thing. We all know what the reaction would be, Robin, my statement on Democrats and their Clinton personality cult stands.

Imagine the insane shrieking that goes on in Bush*te circles everytime  a feminist liberal says the same thing.  I hate to break it to you, Ogami, but advocates for women's reproductive rights have been saying "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare" for effin' decades.  That's where Clinton got it from.
Posted Image

#75 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 12 March 2006 - 12:33 AM

View PostOgami, on Mar 11 2006, 07:33 PM, said:

Call Me Robin wrote:

The topic is this--why would a conservative follow a president who rejects the ideals that true conservatives hold sacred? A true conservative--who follows conservative ideals, not leaders--wouldn't be afraid to ask this question.

I could say the same thing about Pro-Abortion Democrats who stuck with Bill Clinton even though he famously remarked that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare."

In other words, he was pro-choice.  Your point is?

Besides, there's a reason why it's "pro-choice" and not "pro-abortion."  Saying you're pro-abortion is like saying you're pro-tonsillectomy or pro-measles shots.

Of course, these are all non-issues since there is no Bill Clinton personality cult and there are no abortion rallies.  Abortion is not the point.  

Perhaps it is time to drop the silly Clinton obsession, as he has not been president for several years now, and answer this question: Why would conservatives follow a president who doesn't follow traditional conservative belief in restraint, fiscal responsibility, and small government?  Moreover, as the thread title asks, do Bush supporters really have a political ideology?
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#76 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 12 March 2006 - 09:04 AM

Actually, Robin, the Clinton obsession is proof that there is a Bush cult.  It goes like this:

Clinton was a liberal.  (Never mind that he was a very middle-of-the-road  moderate.)  Therefore, every liberal must support every word he said and everything he did, because we Bushies support every word Bush says and everything he does, from ramming up the national debt to astronomical heights to illegal wiretapping to torture.  This leads directly to the "Clinton defense:"  if Bush does "it," and Clinton did "it," too, (even if he actually didn't)  then a liberal is hypocritical for not supporting "it," whatever "it" may be.  The only thing that can possibly underlie this line of unreasoning is the assumption that there is a Clinton cult that mirrors the Bush cult.  

NB:  Not every conservative is a Bushie, and as GW continues to drop like a rock in the polls, there will be fewer and fewer Bushies and more and more who "never supported him at all, never, never."  :devil:

Edited by waterpanther, 12 March 2006 - 09:05 AM.

Posted Image

#77 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 12 March 2006 - 10:52 AM

View Postwaterpanther, on Mar 11 2006, 01:30 PM, said:

Quote

Imagine the insane shrieking that would be going on if Bush (or a Bush-nominated Federal judge) said that very same thing. We all know what the reaction would be, Robin, my statement on Democrats and their Clinton personality cult stands.

Imagine the insane shrieking that goes on in Bush*te circles everytime  a feminist liberal says the same thing.  I hate to break it to you, Ogami, but advocates for women's reproductive rights have been saying "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare" for effin' decades.  That's where Clinton got it from.

You betcha. But Ogami doesn't listen anyway. He can't separate pro-choice from pro-abortion, and he still insists that the evil liberals hold "pro-abortion" rallies.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#78 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 13 March 2006 - 11:51 AM

Quote

A round of applause for Zwolf, everyone! This is all he has ever brought to any discussion we have ever had.

And this is all you seem to bring to discussions - finding one thing you think you're able to address,  declaring it to be the entire argument being made, and ignoring all the rest.  Yep, I made an un-P.C. statement, which may have been unkind or ill-chosen or maybe even dumb.  But all around that statement I was refuting your argument.  You don't seem able (or at least willing) to address that stuff, so you ignore it and focus on the little tidbit that was easier to handle.  Try addressing the fact that you tried shifting the focus from birth control to disease.  Try addressing the fact that you can't enforce abstinance or monogamy and still have a free country, or addressing the fact that there are other forms of birth control besides abstinence (monogamy not being a form of birth control in the first place).  Try addressing the fact that you said people were pushing for abortion being the "first choice in contraception," while that is decidedly not the case, which sales of birth control - as well as more people practicing abstinence than abortion - can prove.

Instead of addressing such things, you again choose to misrepresent something and then try to counter a construct that's completely of your own creation, rather than any actual statement that's been made.  Let's examine the example provided:

Quote

Approaching Zwolf's delightful riposte at face value (a burdensome task), I assume this means that President Bush is ugly. After all, he has only had sex with the same woman for several decades. Unlike the previous occupant of the White House.

You do understand the difference between abstinance and monogamy, don't you?  I made no statement that "monogamy is for ugly people."  As not-nice a statement as it may be, I made it about abstinance - not monogamy.  Bush is not practicing abstinance - he's practicing monogamy.  Therefore your presumption that "I guess this means Bush is ugly" is very, very flawed and built on extremely bad logic.  It's your own construction - not mine.  I give you audacity-points for claiming that this construct is being approached "at face value," though, when face value would have nothing to do with it.

It did, however, provide a nice seque to that reddest of red-herrings: "Clinton was guilty of infidelity."    Which is true, and is a real handy thing to mention when you're wanting to denigrate Clinton, but, inconveniently, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand.  It's a distraction and a substitution.

We've gone from "Celery is more popular because Twinkies are bad for you" to "Celery is more popular because one time there was this fella who kicked his dog!"  

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#79 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 13 March 2006 - 12:26 PM

go get em Z,

rock n roll

:harper:
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#80 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 18 March 2006 - 01:51 PM

View PostOgami, on Mar 11 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

Call Me Robin wrote:

Call Me Robin said:

The topic is this--why would a conservative follow a president who rejects the ideals that true conservatives hold sacred? A true conservative--who follows conservative ideals, not leaders--wouldn't be afraid to ask this question.


I could say the same thing about Pro-Abortion Democrats who stuck with Bill Clinton even though he famously remarked that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare."


Hi, Ogami.  Just saw this.  Question: what, exactly, should pro-CHOICE Democrats find objectionable about Clinton's remark?  The only way your analogy (which you, of course, used to sidestep Call Me Robin's reasonable question) works is if we assume that the goal of Pro-Choice people is to maximize the number of abortions performed in this country.

And that's just nonsense.  Even in a political context, I think we can all agree that aboriton should be rare.  (Look for "Safe, Legal, Rare" to make a comeback in 08.)  


Ogami said:

Imagine the insane shrieking that would be going on if Bush (or a Bush-nominated Federal judge) said that very same thing.


It would be nice if we had a chance to test that theory, but we both know that won't happen.

Edited by _ph, 18 March 2006 - 09:34 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics-American, Bush Supporters, Ideologies

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users