Why many, otherwise intelligent people, continue to follow Bush...

[Bullypulpit]

Have you ever wondered why a battered woman continues to return to the man who beat her the day before? Ever wonder why a child gushes about the father who abandoned them years before?

It is a psychological phenomena called <i><a href=http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eflana1_20041001.htm>trauma-bonding</a></i>. This results in the attraction to the perpetrator of the abuse...particularly when the victim feels he or she cannot escape the abuse or the threat to their security. And when one's world is shaken to its very roots, who better to turn to than an apperently strong, tough-talking leader who seems to have been in charge all along? The morality and/or competence of this leader become less important than their percieved ability to protect one from future events. It is this percieved ablility that leads otherwise intelligent people to continue to cling to such a leader beyond all reason.

George W. Bush is such a leader. Despite his rhetoric about making the "homeland" safer, his actions have had quite the opposite effect. His apparent concern for those who are most vulnerable to further attacks evaporates when they have served his political ends. Like all abusers, he has no one's interests at heart but his own, and will leave us bleeding on the ground when we have served his purposes.

 

[NATO AIR]

you are either very very brave or sadistic

(looks around for flamethrowers impending, runs for cover)

 

[Mr. P]

Well hell..same ole, same ole...

Democratic Playbook...RULE X: The smoke screen.

When our Candidate has no positive attributes to promote we must
look to make asinine characterizations of the opponent. Always insinuate BAD things,
but never go quite as far as to be specific. The goal is to draw attention away from our Candidates weakness.

This is lame Bully and the Intelligent people know it.

 

[007]

Have you ever wondered why a battered woman continues to return to the man who beat her the day before? Ever wonder why a child gushes about the father who abandoned them years before?

It is a psychological phenomena called <i><a href=http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eflana1_20041001.htm>trauma-bonding</a></i>. This results in the attraction to the perpetrator of the abuse...particularly when the victim feels he or she cannot escape the abuse or the threat to their security. And when one's world is shaken to its very roots, who better to turn to than an apperently strong, tough-talking leader who seems to have been in charge all along? The morality and/or competence of this leader become less important than their percieved ability to protect one from future events. It is this percieved ablility that leads otherwise intelligent people to continue to cling to such a leader beyond all reason.

George W. Bush is such a leader. Despite his rhetoric about making the "homeland" safer, his actions have had quite the opposite effect. His apparent concern for those who are most vulnerable to further attacks evaporates when they have served his political ends. Like all abusers, he has no one's interests at heart but his own, and will leave us bleeding on the ground when we have served his purposes.

... pulit walks into the party, proceeds over to the refreshments, drops his drawers and shits in the punch bowl... ah yes... pulit has done it again.

 

[Avatar4321]

Have you ever wondered why a battered woman continues to return to the man who beat her the day before? Ever wonder why a child gushes about the father who abandoned them years before?

It is a psychological phenomena called <i><a href=http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eflana1_20041001.htm>trauma-bonding</a></i>. This results in the attraction to the perpetrator of the abuse...particularly when the victim feels he or she cannot escape the abuse or the threat to their security. And when one's world is shaken to its very roots, who better to turn to than an apperently strong, tough-talking leader who seems to have been in charge all along? The morality and/or competence of this leader become less important than their percieved ability to protect one from future events. It is this percieved ablility that leads otherwise intelligent people to continue to cling to such a leader beyond all reason.

George W. Bush is such a leader. Despite his rhetoric about making the "homeland" safer, his actions have had quite the opposite effect. His apparent concern for those who are most vulnerable to further attacks evaporates when they have served his political ends. Like all abusers, he has no one's interests at heart but his own, and will leave us bleeding on the ground when we have served his purposes.

Quite Ironic, your post describes the Democrat rather than Republican party. Democrats have a candidate who has been quite open in his contempt to screw America. John Kerry betrayed his fellow soldiers to gain political power, he met with the enemy during a time of war, voted against every single weapons system we use to defend this nation, voted to destroy our intelligence community. voted to take more and more of the peoples money, has opening promised the american people he is going to negociate with Iran by giving them nuclear power and appeasing them. Yet somehow President Bush is the problem and you keep crawling back to Kerry despite that you dislike him as well.

Even if we would accept everything you say about Bush as true, which of course its not, its completely BS. Bush would still be the lessor of two evils. You are just so blinded by rage you cant see how destructive a Kerry administration would be.

 

[Merlin1047]

Have you ever wondered why a battered woman continues to return to the man who beat her the day before? Ever wonder why a child gushes about the father who abandoned them years before?

:rotflmao:

You know, it's really tough to type when laughing. A very novel theory you have unearthed. I'm not too sure that it can be applied to GW's presidency, but it might explain why people continue to answer your posts.

:teeth:

 

[nakedemperor]

John Kerry betrayed his fellow soldiers to gain political power, he met with the enemy during a time of war, voted against every single weapons system we use to defend this nation, voted to destroy our intelligence community. voted to take more and more of the peoples money, has opening promised the american people he is going to negociate with Iran by giving them nuclear power and appeasing them.

Kerry's betrayal of his fellow soldiers: history stands on Kerry's side that Vietnam was a mistake, the prosecution of the war was rife with mistakes, that staying as long as we did was a mistake. I'm not surprised that you believe he was personally attacking soldiers on the ground-- in point of fact, he blamed the atrocities (which DID happen, A LOT, in plain view of high levels of the chain of command, all throughout the war) on the command structure, not the troops: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244 . Your 'betrayal' is misinterpretation at best.

Kerry voted against EVERY SINGLE weapons system we use to defend this nation: HAHA! Actually, if you'd watched Zell Miller's speech, you'd know that a couple of decades ago Kerry "opposed" multiple weapons systems, but when funding had already been alloted to them, voted for them because a veto would have been irrelevent. Your critique is dated, and so is Miller's. Go here to see how Kerry ACTUALLY voted on defense spending: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244

Voted to destroy our intelligence community: "Vote to destory intelligence community...Kerry?" "Aye!" Laughable. Give me a link.

Voted to take away more and more of the people's money: Maybe you think NO taxes is the best route? Kerry has repeatedly stated in his election campaign that he would retain and add tax breaks for middle class, but ONLY raise your taxes if you were making 200k.

Iran: (this is a quote from slate) Iran: This was an odd one. Kerry said that the United States should have provided nuclear fuel to Iran to test its true intentions, to see if Iran used the fuel for energy or bombs. If they made bombs, then we should apply sanctions. Bush said we did apply sanctions. Kerry came back that the United States applied the sanctions unilaterally instead of operating with France, Germany, and Britain. Bush replied that it wasn't his administration that applied those sanctions.

All in all, a remarkably confusing exchange in which both candidates uttered several contradictions and non sequiturs. Kerry's position, I'd thought, was to offer Iran the nuclear technology while denying them the fuel. Giving them fuel makes no sense.

Still, give the point—slightly—to Kerry, because, as he pointed out, the Bush administration's policy on Iran, to date, is to do nothing.

 

[MrMarbles]

Have you ever wondered why a battered woman continues to return to the man who beat her the day before? Ever wonder why a child gushes about the father who abandoned them years before?

It is a psychological phenomena called <i><a href=http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eflana1_20041001.htm>trauma-bonding</a></i>. This results in the attraction to the perpetrator of the abuse...particularly when the victim feels he or she cannot escape the abuse or the threat to their security. And when one's world is shaken to its very roots, who better to turn to than an apperently strong, tough-talking leader who seems to have been in charge all along? The morality and/or competence of this leader become less important than their percieved ability to protect one from future events. It is this percieved ablility that leads otherwise intelligent people to continue to cling to such a leader beyond all reason.

George W. Bush is such a leader. Despite his rhetoric about making the "homeland" safer, his actions have had quite the opposite effect. His apparent concern for those who are most vulnerable to further attacks evaporates when they have served his political ends. Like all abusers, he has no one's interests at heart but his own, and will leave us bleeding on the ground when we have served his purposes.

I have wondered why people like this guy, now i understand.

 

[Said1]

Iran: (this is a quote from slate) Iran: This was an odd one. Kerry said that the United States should have provided nuclear fuel to Iran to test its true intentions, to see if Iran used the fuel for energy or bombs. If they made bombs, then we should apply sanctions. Bush said we did apply sanctions. Kerry came back that the United States applied the sanctions unilaterally instead of operating with France, Germany, and Britain. Bush replied that it wasn't his administration that applied those sanctions.

Yes that is odd, and I would add funny if it wasn't such a serious issue.

 

[dilloduck]

Have you ever wondered why a battered woman continues to return to the man who beat her the day before? Ever wonder why a child gushes about the father who abandoned them years before?

It is a psychological phenomena called <i><a href=http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eflana1_20041001.htm>trauma-bonding</a></i>. This results in the attraction to the perpetrator of the abuse...particularly when the victim feels he or she cannot escape the abuse or the threat to their security. And when one's world is shaken to its very roots, who better to turn to than an apperently strong, tough-talking leader who seems to have been in charge all along? The morality and/or competence of this leader become less important than their percieved ability to protect one from future events. It is this percieved ablility that leads otherwise intelligent people to continue to cling to such a leader beyond all reason.

George W. Bush is such a leader. Despite his rhetoric about making the "homeland" safer, his actions have had quite the opposite effect. His apparent concern for those who are most vulnerable to further attacks evaporates when they have served his political ends. Like all abusers, he has no one's interests at heart but his own, and will leave us bleeding on the ground when we have served his purposes.

Good diagnosis, Dr. Bully ! 8 years of Clinton put me through so much trauma that they haven't invented a medication to treat me !
Please tell Congress to either cut all funding for everything else that they spend all our money on and sink it in to homeland security !!!!! To hell with all that money wasted on health, education etc. etc. Either that or do a hell of a lot more deficit spending. NO WAIT-----A summit !!!! that's the ticket!!!!
MEDS------I NEED MY MEDS !!!!!!!! :rotflmao:

 

[dmp]

...Bush is such a leader. Despite his rhetoric about making the "homeland" safer, his actions have had quite the opposite effect

Care to explain how the nation is 'less safe'?

 

[musicman]

Kerry's betrayal of his fellow soldiers: history stands on Kerry's side that Vietnam was a mistake, the prosecution of the war was rife with mistakes, that staying as long as we did was a mistake. I'm not surprised that you believe he was personally attacking soldiers on the ground-- in point of fact, he blamed the atrocities (which DID happen, A LOT, in plain view of high levels of the chain of command, all throughout the war) on the command structure, not the troops: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244 . Your 'betrayal' is misinterpretation at best.

Kerry voted against EVERY SINGLE weapons system we use to defend this nation: HAHA! Actually, if you'd watched Zell Miller's speech, you'd know that a couple of decades ago Kerry "opposed" multiple weapons systems, but when funding had already been alloted to them, voted for them because a veto would have been irrelevent. Your critique is dated, and so is Miller's. Go here to see how Kerry ACTUALLY voted on defense spending: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244

Voted to destroy our intelligence community: "Vote to destory intelligence community...Kerry?" "Aye!" Laughable. Give me a link.

Voted to take away more and more of the people's money: Maybe you think NO taxes is the best route? Kerry has repeatedly stated in his election campaign that he would retain and add tax breaks for middle class, but ONLY raise your taxes if you were making 200k.

Iran: (this is a quote from slate) Iran: This was an odd one. Kerry said that the United States should have provided nuclear fuel to Iran to test its true intentions, to see if Iran used the fuel for energy or bombs. If they made bombs, then we should apply sanctions. Bush said we did apply sanctions. Kerry came back that the United States applied the sanctions unilaterally instead of operating with France, Germany, and Britain. Bush replied that it wasn't his administration that applied those sanctions.

All in all, a remarkably confusing exchange in which both candidates uttered several contradictions and non sequiturs. Kerry's position, I'd thought, was to offer Iran the nuclear technology while denying them the fuel. Giving them fuel makes no sense.

Still, give the point&#8212;slightly&#8212;to Kerry, because, as he pointed out, the Bush administration's policy on Iran, to date, is to do nothing.

History stands on Kerry's side? It does no such thing. Whether or not going into Vietnam was a mistake can be debated for the next few generations. Once having gone in, not fighting to win was a tragedy; a monstrous betrayal of American blood. And, history shows that John Kerry stabbed his brothers-in arms in the back. The testimony of POW's who endured suffering AS A DIRECT RESULT OF KERRY'S ACTIONS is a matter of public record. The Vietnamese themselves credit John Kerry and his ilk with giving them strength to fight on, where they'd have otherwise surrendered.

Re weapons systems: Kerry was against them before he was for them? Gee, where have I heard THAT before?

Tax breaks for the middle class? The electorate have heard THAT song from Democrats before. "The rich will be asked to pay their fair share of taxes", Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign ad promised. Imagine America's surprise upon learning that a family of four, earning $28,000 a year, was RICH.

As to Iran: As has been stated elsewhere on this board, it is highly likely that delicate diplomatic efforts are underway with Iran which the President is simply not at liberty to discuss. Moreover, it is just as likely that John Kerry KNOWS this, and brought up a sensitive foreign policy question in order to score cheap points in a debate, and national security be damned. He makes me want to puke.

 

[nakedemperor]

As to Iran: As has been stated elsewhere on this board, it is highly likely that delicate diplomatic efforts are underway with Iran which the President is simply not at liberty to discuss.

Listen, Kerry obviously has a much MUCH better plan for fixing Dubya's mess in Iraq, he's just not at liberty to discuss it!

 

[insein]

History stands on Kerry's side? It does no such thing. Whether or not going into Vietnam was a mistake can be debated for the next few generations. Once having gone in, not fighting to win was a tragedy; a monstrous betrayal of American blood. And, history shows that John Kerry stabbed his brothers-in arms in the back. The testimony of POW's who endured suffering AS A DIRECT RESULT OF KERRY'S ACTIONS is a matter of public record. The Vietnamese themselves credit John Kerry and his ilk with giving them strength to fight on, where they'd have otherwise surrendered.

Re weapons systems: Kerry was against them before he was for them? Gee, where have I heard THAT before?

Tax breaks for the middle class? The electorate have heard THAT song from Democrats before. "The rich will be asked to pay their fair share of taxes", Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign ad promised. Imagine America's surprise upon learning that a family of four, earning $28,000 a year, was RICH.

As to Iran: As has been stated elsewhere on this board, it is highly likely that delicate diplomatic efforts are underway with Iran which the President is simply not at liberty to discuss. Moreover, it is just as likely that John Kerry KNOWS this, and brought up a sensitive foreign policy question in order to score cheap points in a debate, and national security be damned. He makes me want to puke.

One could argue that not winning Vietnam has caused us to be where we are today. That planted a seed of doubt in the worlds eyes that America was the greatest country on Earth. It was all the communists in this country needed to get a foothold and plan for their future takeover. They knew the USSR was doomed. They planted infiltrators into American systems so that they could someday takeover. Schools, MEdia, government; The communists have been planning this for decades. That is why this election is so critical. If we lose to a communist puppet, this country will have taken a major step backwards from Reagan's efforts to save her.

 

[dilloduck]

Listen, Kerry obviously has a much MUCH better plan for fixing Dubya's mess in Iraq, he's just not at liberty to discuss it!

WHAT-----YOU MEAN A SUMMIT WASN'T THE REAL SOLUTION??? DAMN :rotflmao:

 

[musicman]

One could argue that not winning Vietnam has caused us to be where we are today. That planted a seed of doubt in the worlds eyes that America was the greatest country on Earth. It was all the communists in this country needed to get a foothold and plan for their future takeover. They knew the USSR was doomed. They planted infiltrators into American systems so that they could someday takeover. Schools, MEdia, government; The communists have been planning this for decades. That is why this election is so critical. If we lose to a communist puppet, this country will have taken a major step backwards from Reagan's efforts to save her.

!000% right, Insein. If you have nothing better to do, and are up to a long, dull read, check out The Port Huron Statement. It is, literally, the mission statement for the SDS, authored by Tom Hayden and his fellow whining, spoiled little university Marxists in June, 1962. In other words, the '60's counterculture had a specific beginning, and a clear manifesto. Some of what you're saying sounds like it was lifted, word for word, right out of the master plan.

 

[musicman]

Listen, Kerry obviously has a much MUCH better plan for fixing Dubya's mess in Iraq, he's just not at liberty to discuss it!

THIS is your answer???!!!

 

[nakedemperor]

Well, it was supposed to be 'poking' fun at you for saying that the president isn't doing NOTHING about Iran (the reality) he's actually "secretly negotiating but not telling anyone about it". OBVIOUSLY! Shit, why didn't I think of that!?

 

[Bonnie]

... pulit walks into the party, proceeds over to the refreshments, drops his drawers and shits in the punch bowl... ah yes... pulit has done it again.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[nakedemperor]

Shitting in the punch bowl. That's comic genius. Bonnie, stop encouraging him!