He's the PRESIDENT, dammit!
2007-06-15 15:27:35 · 9 answers · asked by flushles 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
so what? he's also a liar, a draft dodger and a deserter. he's a complete and total failure.
2007-06-15 15:39:26 · answer #1 · answered by David S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no comparison between not supporting a military confrontation, and not wanting endless hordes of Mexicans from changing the racial composition of the U.S. These people are not just here illegally, draining our system of resources with free births for their children (who then ironically become American citizens), free education, free health care, etc., but then they have the unmitigated gall to demonstrate against our country, with the thinly-veiled threat on their protest signs: "Today we march, tomorrow we vote". No wonder spineless politicians are scared to oppose this massive illegal invasion. These illegals, due to their sheer numbers, are dictating policy to our elected representatives who are too scared that one day soon, these same people could vote them out of office.
Opposing the illegals is, by definition, acting as a patriot. The most basic definition of a sovereign nation is the ability to control ones borders. That is how a nation is created, and how it is defined. All these illegals pouring across the border make a mockery of our national sovereignty. It's humiliating that third world countries are doing a better job than the United States.
By the way, do you know what happens in Mexico when the police catch an illegal, such as some desperate person from Guatemala? They steal all his money, beat him up for good measure, and until about two weeks ago, routinely tossed him in jail. (Mexico finally made it more difficult to automatically throw these people in prison. Maybe it costs them too much).
What you seem to forget is that ALL the U.N. Security Council countries should have voted for military intervention in Iraq. Voting on it should have been a mere technicality and a show of unity. Each U.N. Security Council country had unanimously passed very sternly worded resolutions against Iraq.... 17 of them, calling for military intervention if Iraq did not comply! We were patient. We waited, and waited, and waited while idiot bureaucrats gave Saddam carte blanche to continue thumbing his nose at the U.N. Saddam was bribing these U.N. Security Council members with oil revenue money. Have you already forgotten the huge Oil For Food Scandal? No wonder, Liberal mouth pieces like the NYT printed 47 front page articles about Abu Ghraib and none on the Oil For Food scandal. If anything ever proved gross, irresponsible Liberal bias, this is it.
Cons are not blindly supporting the President at every turn. We understand the difference between legitimate patriotic action and irresponsible, even treasonous actions directed against our government.
2007-06-16 07:16:48 · answer #2 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes! They are emboldening the terrorists! Those unpatriotic Bush bashers!
2007-06-15 22:31:37 · answer #3 · answered by kradleoffilth 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. They should stand by the president.
2007-06-15 22:32:44 · answer #4 · answered by Page 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
only if people against the war are unpatriotic.
2007-06-15 22:31:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Liberal logic for you. They equate not supporting amnesty for illegals with not supporting the troops when they are off at war.
2007-06-15 22:30:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Nope. :) I don't like the Patriot Bill either! So there.
Raspberries for you!
2007-06-15 22:30:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i don't think anyone supports Bush on this one
2007-06-15 22:30:10 · answer #8 · answered by Gemini 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lol! Con logic never ceases to amaze me - if you can call it logic...
2007-06-15 22:31:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋