A genuine question for those who voted for Bush...
polycounter lvl 18
As much as I hate to start another political thread, I desperately need an answer to this question. I've posed this question to people on another forum that I frequent, and have asked several Bush-supporters that I know personally, and have yet to get an answer; so please, don't respond unless you actually voted for Bush (at least until a Bush-supporter is able to first answer the question).
Could someone please explain how Bush has done a good--or at the very least, even an adequate--job? I don't want to hear anything about John Kerry, or Clinton, or liberals, or democrats or anyone other than Bush; why does the President deserve a second term after his performance over the past four years? I find it immensely troubling that the only answers I've been able to get thus far are a regurgitation of television campaign ads about Kerry and "liberals." Please tell me that this president didn't buy his way back into office by duping the American public with campaign ads.
It's not the fact that Bush is still president that bothers me, but that no one has been able to give me a proper justification as to why. It has really put me in a dismal mood, and it would really help if anyone could give me a real answer to my question
.
Could someone please explain how Bush has done a good--or at the very least, even an adequate--job? I don't want to hear anything about John Kerry, or Clinton, or liberals, or democrats or anyone other than Bush; why does the President deserve a second term after his performance over the past four years? I find it immensely troubling that the only answers I've been able to get thus far are a regurgitation of television campaign ads about Kerry and "liberals." Please tell me that this president didn't buy his way back into office by duping the American public with campaign ads.
It's not the fact that Bush is still president that bothers me, but that no one has been able to give me a proper justification as to why. It has really put me in a dismal mood, and it would really help if anyone could give me a real answer to my question
.
Replies
I am for as little taxation as possible for anyone amd I don't care what social class. Any tax cut is a good tax cut to me. Spend my taxes on the military, the interstates, oh and I guess on abortions.
I am for a proactive stance in the world militarily. I am for a heavy presence in the middle east at this time even thoguh I have seen mistakes in how things are being handled now. (As far as how are troops are equipped) I expect to see changes for the better for the people we have over there. (It might not happen, but expect it to.) I can't say that barreling into Iraq was my idea of the perfect next move, but we are there and it needs to be finished up properly.
I don't personally believe getting to know Osama and trying to understand his plight is going to change anything he or his buddies do or the way they go about doing it.
Now that I have exposed my self to the world and have left myself open for a complete drubbing I will say, freedoms that some people see as lost and important are not always important to others. Freedoms many others feel are not so important are very important to me.
I'm not intending to debate any of this with anyone, but he asked.
No gun control.
Caps on medical claims.
Making people work for welfare.
Anti-abortion.
Not too pro stem cell research.
His wife is not in the top 400 richest people in the world.
For civil unions only.
Sticks to his convictions.
His quick response to 911 attack.
Reminds me of Abe Lincoln.
Strong defense and military.
Republican and from Texas.
His Dad was a President.
Seems sincere.
Not afraid to disclose his faith.
Gave the Taliban many days to give up Osama and his crew.
Gave Hussein like 6 or 8 months to get out of Iraq.
He took out Sodom Insane and his boys.
Gave up $ 600 rebate check one year and another tax cut last 2 years.
Gave me a considerable amount of entertainment last 4 years.
But above all, no other nation should have any power or influence on where and how we should use our military, and Pacifism should never become national policy.
2.) Sticking it to the smug slime in hollywood and the mainstream media. They tried to get their cake with McCain Feingold to be the only arbiters of taste when it came to politics, and thank goodness the web, and the Swiftboat Vets, who provided opposition to CBS and ABC. who as the cvampaign progressed seemed to become more and more partisan as the campaign rolled on. Dan Rather should resign, and his prosducer should have been fired. The ABC "Political Advisor" putting out the memo urging his underlings to show bias against the presendent was baldfaced as well. Making Michael Moore and Barbara Streissand and Ed Asner unhappy makes me happy. Same with the Eurpean Greens and the left. an excerpt from Gerrard baker's collum from the Times of London The list of those whose world could be truly rocked on Tuesday is just too long and too rich to be ignored. If you think for a moment about those who would really be upset by a second Bush term, it becomes a lot easier to stomach.
The hordes of the bien-pensant Left in the universities and the media, the sort of liberals who tolerate everything except those who disagree with them. Secularist elites who disdain religiosity except when it comes from Muslim fanatics. Europhile Brits who drip contempt for everything their country has ever done and long for its disappearance into a Greater Europe.Absurd, isolationist conservatives in America and Britain who think the struggles for freedom are always someone elses fight. Hollywood sybarites and narcissists, self-appointed arbiters of a nations morals.
Soft-headed Europeans who think engagement and dialogue with mass murderers is the way to achieve lasting peace. French intellectuals for whom nothing has gone right in the world since 1789.
The United Nations, which, if it had its multilateral way, would still be faithfully minding a world in which half the population lived under or in fear of Soviet aggression. Most of Belgium.
Above all, of course, Middle Eastern militants. If your bitterest enemies are the sort of people who hack the heads off unarmed, innocent civilians, then I would say you are probably doing something right.
This may sound petty. It is not. This constellation of individuals, parties and institutions has very little in common other than the fact that it has contrived to be wrong on just about every important issue of my adult lifetime.
And so, perhaps for the wrong reasons, perhaps less because he has been right and more because those who hate him so much have been so wrong, I want this President re-elected.
Go on America. Make Their Day.
I was being humorous posting that one to my LJ, but not "lighthearted". In general Ioppose most "progressive" causes, because I see them as guilt and collectivist driven impositions on our freedoms, and value "freedom"a little more than "equality". If there is Equality it should be equality of oppotunity, rather than equality of outcome. I don't believe that governments should be in the "Distribution business, with the occasional exception here and there. Th free markets are more efficient at it that way.
3.) The end of the Assault Weapons Ban. He promised to sign it if it crossed his desk, butHe never encouraged it to do so so the assault Weapons ban is in the ashheap of history, (mostly though Californis astill ahsa number of state prohibitions). So I went out and finished my AR-15 and got it into fireable condition.
4.) His shut down of the trial lawyers with damage caps and reductions in Frivolous Lawsuits in Texas. I can only hope that he can push this forward in the rest of the U.S.
5.) Picking Strict Constitutionalist Judges. TheConstitution is not a "living Document" and up for parsing and lawyerly re-interpretation. I't s a dead, but inportant piece of paper containing rules delimiting the scope and rules of government in the states. and the rights and responsibilities of the branches and the people. The fillibustering of judges is not quite constitutional and not quite Robert's Rules either. The constitution should have the plain reading as meaning, rather than the wedging and hairl splitting to create "new rights" from areas that arenlt dealt with. Or inferring new roles for government where the constitution says they should not go. We apllready have too large a government, mostly thanks to FDR. than is technically constitutional. Also Supreme court rulings should NEVER cite foreign Precedent. (Thanks Judge Ginsberg :-P).
6.) He's a moral man. He sticks to his principles
7.) The Patriot Act, in that the coordination between Intelligence and Law enforcement allows for greater efficiency in detecting patterns of terroism.
8.) The economy has improved under his tenure, despitethe 9/11.
9.) He never would have supported the Sandinistas
ON the other hand a few things I don't Like about Bush.
1.) The Reduction of Veteran's Benefits,though that was in place and proceeding since Clinton's terms. Tri Care is a joke.
2.) The Pharaceutical Benefit.
3.) His profligate non-military spending. He's spending way too much,
4.) Abandoning free trade for Steel Tarrifs to try for a generally ungrateful Union Vote, which just resulted in higher steel prices.
For me, the main issue is the war. all other issues take a sideline to this. There are also issues that I frankly don't care about, or I am hostile to, that Bush does not support, which also lead me to support him.
Scott
A lot my ideologies actually mirror your own. I'm a registered independent who sometimes leans a bit to the right, but is for the most part socially left. The reason I voted for Kerry was because I'm worried about what Bush is doing to the national debt. Increasing spending while cutting revenues is flat out irresponsible; we've gone from the largest surplus in our history to our largest deficit. Hopefully Bush will attempt to pull us out of this hole in his second term, but I'm not holding my breath. I guess I'm so concerned about this issue because I'm young, and I (along with my future children) will have to deal with any long-term detrimental effects this may have on the economy.
And about "freedoms" that you mention, I believe strongly in the famous quote of Benjamin Franklin: "They who would sacrifice an essential freedom for temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security." Which is why I'm a bit upset over current legislation that impedes on certain rights for the sake of "security" (I believe the Bill of Rights to be sacred, and any piece of legislation that tries to circumvent those rights should be deemed unconstitutional).
I'll be able to live with Bush being my president for another four years, I just hope he does a better job than he has thus far. What I really needed from this thread was a little bit of perspective; I was overreacting to what's been going on recently. Both sides have ignorant voters, and both sides have informed voters.
[edit] I appreciate that you also took the time to make an informed response, Scott.
Keyser: I luv your avatar and think I know what it is, too.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's HYPNOTOAD from Futurama! I posted the full image in this thread.
A war is notorius for that. Especially a unilateral one (at least finnancially) such as this.
-R
1) He comes off as an honest, moral man ... someone who made mistakes in his youth, owned up to them, and changed for the better.
2) He is anti-abortion and has actively worked to end this death-of-the-innocent-for-convenience sake "right" that a panel of judges (not a body of legislators) found in the constitution. Mr. Kerry, by contrast, gives lip service to anti-abortion beliefs, but has voted against legislation to limit access to abortion at every opportunity, including the heinous practice of aborting late term unborn. Given the state of modern medicine, I can see almost no justification for terminating a viable unborn life.
3) He is a man of faith and conviction and not afraid or ashamed to share those views. It amazes me that many are unable to see the diference between leaders having religious faith and making their decisions based on them, and having n official state-sanctioned religion. The Constitution was drafted to prevent the USA from having the equivalent of a "Church of England" or nations like France where everone was either Catholic, exiled, or killed.
4) He believes the job of a federal judge is to interpret the law as it was written, not reinvent it to serve a special interest group. As important as electing a more conservative president was to me, was the fact that the balance of the Senate shifted to a stronger majority of Republicans, which approves the appointment of federal judges and supreme court justices. Hopefully, this will end the shameful gridlock in federal judge appointments that is the result of Democratic filibustering.
5) He is openly and enthusiastically pro-military and pro-defense. I do not have a military background, but I recognize that if you don't maintain a strong military and keep it up to date, you make yourself vulnerable to enemies.
6) His policies are America-First policies. He will not send up trial balloons in Paris, Beijing, Brussells, or the floor of UN to find out whether our foreign policy measures up to a "Global Test." America has earned the right to make it's own way.
7) He understands that the money I earn is MY money. I am not a temporary steward of the government's money.
8) His fiscal policies are targeted on the free market ideas that money moving through the hands of the people will better stimulate and grow the economy than money spent by the government.
9) He recognizes that faith-based organizations have historically been the best organizations for providing human services.
10) He made his first cabinet up out of competent professionals who, for the most part, shared his views. I never had the feeling that his choices were made solely on political cronyism.
10) He's not an elistist who imagines himself to be better than others.
11) He is not a member of the Democratic Party.
12) His wife is a classy first lady. She may well be the most beloved first lady this nation has had in my lifetime.
13) Michael Moore dislikes him intensely. Re-electing the President was the most powerful thing I could do to piss off Michael Moore. I will now return to my current policy of completing ignoring the clown from Flint.
14) Cher, Barbara Streisand, Madonna, Sean Penn, Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Twits, Ben Affleck, etc., etc. all dislike him. How dare we as a nation ignore the collective wisdom of our professional entertainers? We do so at our own peril. By the way, I'm willing to take up a collection to pay for airfare if those entertainers who vowed to leave the country forever back in 2000 will honor their sworn vows.
Paul
Proud Voter from a RED state.
..anyone?
(not a big fan myslef, but I will accept him as Daredevil)
[ QUOTE ]
He is openly and enthusiastically pro-military and pro-defense. I do not have a military background, but I recognize that if you don't maintain a strong military and keep it up to date, you make yourself vulnerable to enemies.
[/ QUOTE ]
I just love to listen to the right who never served talk about the military. Present company and present administration included. This may sound a bit harsh but maybe if any of you had served you would have a bit of empathy and understanding towards the military rather than viewing them as a bunch of toy soldiers there to advance the will of our government; regardless of what that will may be.
I know that I "joked" that I was leaving for Canada - fuck that. I actually fought to defend this country. I'm staying and I'm going to take it back from you chickenhawks that would rather stand on the sidelines and pound your chests while others fight. This is MY country and that's MY flag. I intend to take it back.
Duke: heh, Daredevil was his only saving moment, much like Paltrow in Royal Tenenbaums; they finally learned acting is about holding it in rather than pushing it out too far.
[/ QUOTE ]
agreed! now off topic (what do you think about Farrell as Bond?)
It amazes me that many are unable to see the diference between leaders having religious faith and making their decisions based on them
[/ QUOTE ]
Hrmmm... could you explain to me how opposing gay marriage in order to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage isn't making a decision based on "faith" or religion?
[ QUOTE ]
He understands that the money I earn is MY money. I am not a temporary steward of the government's money.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well whose money is paying for this war? We're funding this war on credit, and somebody is going to end up having to foot the bill (the burden will fall to our children if we don't do something about it).
[ QUOTE ]
His fiscal policies are targeted on the free market ideas that money moving through the hands of the people will better stimulate and grow the economy than money spent by the government.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is something I agree with. Unfortunately, he has been responsible for a significant amount of government spending which has caused an ENORMOUS deficit (the largest our country has ever seen).
[ QUOTE ]
He is not a member of the Democratic Party.
[...]
Michael Moore dislikes him intensely. Re-electing the President was the most powerful thing I could do to piss off Michael Moore.
[...]
Cher, Barbara Streisand, Madonna, Sean Penn, Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Twits, Ben Affleck, etc., etc. all dislike him
[/ QUOTE ]
These are three very stupid reasons to vote for somebody, especially the first one. I really don't understand bullheaded party-loyalty (it seems that a lot of people on both sides are guilty of this). The Michael Moore and liberal-Hollywood comments didn't really bother me because I took it as more of a joke, but if you were serious, I really don't think you should vote for someone out of spite. I'm annoyed by the moronic babbling of liberal Hollywood as much as anyone, but I'm not going to let it have any bearing on my decision either way.
I've always considered myself a moderate, but in my 20's, I was on the left side of the fence. I voted for Clinton the first time around. During that time, I was living in Baltimore City, in what was generally considered a "decent" area. In that eight year period, I watched firsthand what the culture of unnaccountability was doing to what was once a vibrant, hopeful place. Murders piling up, liberal judges letting the perps off the hooks, cops being forced to tie one arm behind their back because of greedy, corrupt trial lawyers, and the city that was once an economic powerhouse for the state of Maryland, slowly turning into one massive parasitic leech. I got to see the how the "welfare state" worked, with single moms having more babies so they could get more money, so they could buy more crack. When I think about it, my stomach wretches and turns. It was eye opening to say the least. If you don't think that the liberals contribute to that culture, then you are fooling yourself. Just look how they voted.
As far as Bush goes, I think he is doing the right thing regarding the War on Terror, plain and simple. As you get older, and hopefully always getting wiser, you start to see through people a little more. I agree with Bush that we need to be on the offensive. I'm not going to get into debating the tie-in with Iraq, because those on the left will see things their own way, it's a useless debate at this point. Republicans have traditionally been pro-military spending, democrats the opposite. I was old enough to remember the Carter years, and how during his administration the Military was emasculated, while our chief threat, U.S.S.R at the time, was becoming more powerful. Alot of people on this board aren't old enough to truly remember what the Cold War was like, but the threat of nuclear annihliation dominated our culture in those days. Now we have new threat, and I want somebody in charge who isn't going to put his head in the sand and hope it all just goes away. I know better. I know people enough to know, that people like Bin Laden are not looking for peace, no matter what they or anyone else says. He drew the line in the sand on Sept 11.
Another part of me feels revulsion at the disrespectful attitude of the left, and their attacks on Bush, which I personally feeled are largely unjustified, no matter how much they kick and scream. Michael Moore, well, as much as some of you may say you don't take him seriously, HE takes himself seriously, and a number of other people do as well.
I fully expect for my thoughts on this to be thoughly dissected, refuted, and ridiculed here. That is fine, I know my audience. Fact is, most of you, with the exception of Scott, Paul, Duke and Sal are a bit younger than I, and I know how I felt then too. I'm not saying that to put anyone down, but just to through it out there that your views can change with life experiences, just as living in an urban cesspool changed mine.
I think it fair to say that all our laws that deal with what is right and wrong are ultimately based in a faith-based set of rules (e.g.; the 10 commandments). Is the government overstepping it's bounds when it says that murder is wrong? I know I'm using the extreme end of the spectrum there. But part of American heritage is to legislate based on morality and ethics. That voters in all the states polled chose to reject gay marriage, even the ones who cast electoral votes for Kerry, suggests that this issue resonates deeply in the American spirit ... that it is just not one man's opinion.
My money is paying for this war, as is yours. But the war is not the only way that money is being spent. We pour money into programs that have nothing to do with keeping hte nation safe, well, or prosperous. If I can fault Bush for anything, it's for not taking advantage of his party's majority in Congress and working to courageously gut spending programs right and left. I'd like to see the federal government reduce its size significantly. Military spending will likely have to continue at current or higher levels until the Terrorism problem is brought under control.
Choosing to vote for someone because he pisses off liberals, regardless of what their names are is a good reason. How many folks vote AGAINST the President for no other reason than they decided they didn't like or even hated him.
Voting for him because he is not a Democrat probably should have been higher on my list. It goes beyond simple party loyalty. I choose to vote Republican because by and large, the party's values, choices and supported causes are in line with my own values and beliefs. The value choices and espoused causes of the Democratic Party are often very repellent to me. I could rant on this for quite some time.
Paul
I think it fair to say that all our laws that deal with what is right and wrong are ultimately based in a faith-based set of rules
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Morality doesn't necessitate religion; this is a misconception that really pisses me off. I am agnostic, and yet I have a set of morals. What morality boils down to is the right for one to exist; to impose on another's existence is to be immoral. So, of course, to terminate someone's existence (kill them) is the ultimate imposition, and therefore the most immoral thing one could do. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the 10 commandments (other than the fact that those commandments were likely framed around a similar, basic principle). Under this basic principle, to limit one's rights is also to impose on their existence, to an extend, and therefore immoral in my eyes. How's that for morality?
In regards to gay marriage, George Bush claims to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage. "Sanctity" is a religious term, not a legal one.
but had i voted, it would have been for Bush, even though i'm in the very blue state of Illinois.
but before i say why, i'll say what i don't like about Bush. i had a lot of concerns with the justification and prosecution for this war, and there are some social policies that i certainly do not agree with.
the reason i would have voted for him is fairly simple, as it was for my whole family: i'm Catholic, and one thing Bush has certifiably done well on is to pass the Partial-Birth abortion ban, which was heinous and inhumane. even if i don't come at it from a religious angle at all, as Paul Jaquays said earlier in the thread from the viewpoint of viability i can't see how you could possibly justify a late term abortion. in the words of Mother Teresa, "it is a poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
no, i did not support the war. but wars come and go, and though our soldiers are paying the price it was a voluntary duty for them to serve our country. there are great incentives for health benefits and education, yes, but no american was forced into dying for his country, our soldiers all serve willingly. abortion, on the other hand, war or no war, means that kids are dying at a fairly constant rate in this country just because of our social mores and for the sake of convenience, without any choice on their part.
it's not the best comparison, but it summarizes why Bush was a better choice than Kerry, who seemed to push most of his election on the strength that he was not Bush, which is all most anyone seemed to care about. A negative campaign.
needless to say i am very much looking forward to a fresh set of candidates for 2008. i think this election was very important for rousing the public to action... at least more than they're used to
oh, and as far as the gay marriage thing, that was something else that i thought was important. yes, much is held over religious conviction, but marriage is a religious institution and the United States by and large is a religious country. there is the seperation of church and state, but it's ridiculous to expect a nation that largely believes one thing to go and legislate something else. i think it's appropriate for the nation to vote according to its character and its beliefs.
i would support civil unions as a way for homosexuals to enjoy the same tax cuts/government privileges, however. that i would say is discriminatory not to allow.
His quick response to 911 attack.
[/ QUOTE ]
I heard when the first plane crashed into the WTC he was reading a book to little children. Upon being informed of the horrific attack he did nothing and continued to read to them for another 7mins.
I'm also wondering if since a large percentage of bush voters were gun loving fag haters, what percentage of voters voted for kerry because the internet told them bush was "dumb, and looked kinda like a monkey" without knowing any of the real issues, stupidity of voters swings both ways and if you check snopes.com you will see theres been a shitload of false statements about bushs' intelligence passed arround. If he's so bad why is most of the junk made up?
Er yeah, a perfectly intelligent and interesting thread ruined.
just some my thoughts:
*marriage is a religious concept. therefore gay marriage should be decided upon by the individual churches/Rome/synagogues/whatever. not the government if the churches want to marry to gay people, let them. the government should recognize the marriage and give them the same rights as a straight couple. apparently All men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness except if youre gay. the states that voted down allowing gay marriages and defining marriage as between a man and a woman werent voted on by people who just didnt want gays to get married, it was people who think being gay is immoral and wrong.
do european politicians expose their faith like bush? didnt margret thatcher catch heavy flak for mentioning God one time at the end of a speech? the only time she ever mentinoed God in any speech...
*the best thing i heard John Kerry say during his campaigne was "I cannot take, what is for me an article of faith, and legislate it." could someone run for president in this country and never mention their faith? when did your faith become more important than what your are going to do with this country? the Bible is a book of metaphors that you are supposed to learn from. morality tales like Aesop's fables, there is a lesson to take away from the stories. it's not a rule book to judge everyone and everything by. (you have stolen 5$ from your mother's purse. roll a d20. you ahve failed your saving, go to Hell!)
*bush DID NOT GET Saddam. yes the iraqi government was toppled but Saddam was found hiding in a hole. a soldier tripped over a wire or something and found the secret door. Saddam was a bad guy. noone will deny that but he was a bully. he claimed to have weapons he didnt to prove he was a big tough guy. if he was such a big tough guy who threatened the free world why was he hiding in a small whole for weeks? he was just messing with the USA. my JROTC teacher, a major with the US Army said nearly ten years go Saddam liked to mess with the USA. he'd do something, we would send troops over. the troops would come back and he'd do something again and we'd send troops over. repeat... just messing with us.
*general weasley clark has said that the day after 9-11 he met with some guys in the pentagon and they asked him if he wanted to hear a joke. he said he didnt think it was the time for jokes. they said 'really youve got to hear this one.' he said 'fine.' they said 'if saddam didn't do 9-11 he should have because we're going to get him anyway.' clark said 'thats not funny.'
*who would have been better to have leading this country in wartime: a)someone who has been in war, fighting against guerilla insurgents, or b)someone who was never in a combat situation? who would you follow into combat?
but we're in iraq now and it needs to be finished. bush has to finish what he started. if it can be finished in 4 years. atleast now if things go from bad to worse noone can blame it on john kerry.
*michael moore needs to shut up and retire... a documentry shows all the facts not the facts that support your opinion. ive seen him talk on several shows (cnn, the o'reily factor, real time with bill mahre) and he's an idiot who can hold a real discussion without calling bush a liar repeatedly.
i can see both side on all these issues...
i feel so disillusioned right now... so uhmm.. yeah...
People kill people, yes, but people kill people with weaponry, including assault rifles, handguns, shotguns and other various projectile-based weapon.
I don't like abortion, but it does have it's uses, and ultimately, it's consequenses.
However, it should never be illegal. It all boils down to choice, which every person is entitled to. The second abortion is made illegal, over 99% of all women in the US lose a large portion of their rights, no matter if they would have used that right or not.
Just as civil unions - the legal benefits of these should be equal to those of the common marriage, and they should be equally allowed.
And no, more liberalism does NOT automatically mean more women abusing abortion, more corrupted governments and more murders, as someone insinuated... If that was true, then Denmark would be a hellhole to live in, which it is not. -_-
Now I don't know what the guys told Bush in that classroom, if it was just "America is under attack, mister president!" a confused reaction was to be expected. What would YOU think when you're told that the country you're in is under attack? Attack implies an invasion or nuclear strike, in that case Bush's responsibility would have been to take cover and maybe authorize the use of force to repell the invaders (though that should have been implicit as well). He had the choice of just runing away, hoping to reach the nuke shelter alive and making the people panic or try to dissappear calmly and try to avoid a panic.
Really, Bush's job was to accept or decline the military's proposal on a counter attack, maybe a speech that he is sorry for the dead and their families but not much beyond that. He's the president, he cannot care about every minor issue (and isolated terrorist activity IS minor from the perspective of the POTUS) himself. He has underlings to do that.
Hm, another question, are heavy arms allowed in the US? You know, anti-air missiles, mortars, tanks, etc? Because if not I'd propose that people try to push for that as well. If you want to hunt an assault rifle is a bit much and if you want to protect your country from inner and outer enemies you need anti-tank and anti-air weaponry. People with anti-air missiles could take down a terrorist plane before it hits them, an assault rifle isn't going to help you with that. Or what if you need to overthrow the government? How would you stop their tanks and planes and stuff?
Of course evil people could take down civil planes with anti-air missiles but evil people don't care about the law anyway, right? And instead of killing hundreds of people by blowing up their plane you could just kill them by using automatic weaponry downtown.
the military did react. although only 4 jet fighters in the entire nation were able to be in the air at that moment and they were several hundred miles away.
no we cant own heavy arms although people can shoot 50 caliber sniper rifles for fun.
[ QUOTE ]
Lets have a pc vote and see how many great left of centre minds ( and there are many ) that hang out on this board didn't vote Bush because he 'looks a bit like a monkey'.
[/ QUOTE ]
cool and while we are at it lets see who here voted bush because they were gay hating gun lovers , who only voted cause they were mindless sheep.
Er yeah, a perfectly intelligent and interesting thread ruined again
<ul type="square">
[*]1 Do you accept the findings of the report to the Senate Armed Services Committee, that Saddam had destroyed the bulk of his WMDs after Gulf War I?
[*]2 Do you accept the assertions of Bush and Cheney that, despite a lack of evidence to favor it, they believe that Iraq was supporting Al Quaeda prior to the American invasion of Iraq?
[*]3 If you answer was 'yes' on 1 and 'no' on 2, what other justification can you give to the invasion of Iraq? If it's that 'Saddam was a dangerous dictator', do you favor going into North Korea next?
[*]4 If you support the 10 Commandments as a basis for legislation and law enforcement, what commandments besides 6 and 8 do you think should be enacted into laws?
[/list]
I'm not trying to trip you up, here, dudes, I want your honest opinions about these. I think that these are some difficult and interesting issues. I don't consider myself a 'liberal', but my politicospeak role models are Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. Just so you know.
/jzero
If you voted for the other side, and are not genuinely interested in why these people voted the way they did, I'd recommend you start another thread. Once that thread is created, it can be linked here for quick reference.
I've always considered the ability to listen to both sides of an argument a CORE value of liberalism. If you think they're wrong, tell them why by making a better case in a different thread, not by going after them here. Agreed?
1. Yes. I do believe that most of it was destroyed. I also believe he had interest, or at least feigned it, in reviving those programs. I also believe that Saddam could have avoided the entire thing by being more cooperative. Instead he played games and was strictly defiant.
2. Yes. I don't think there is a "lack of evidence". There were intercepted communications in 1998. Al Zarquari was allowed to operate freely in Northern Iraq, and in Baghdad, where he received medical attention. The fact that there is a large amount of Al Qaeda in Iraq now is not a coincidence. Al Zarquari was/is a known Al Qaeda operative, and fairly high up, and Saddam knew it, and allowed him free access.
3. N/A
4. I'm an atheist, so N/A
Consider the fact we're all sheep to a much higher power: our whole society.
If you're angry about the election results, it's time to take a deep breath and move on. Life will always be a challenge, your only method of survival is to accept that challenge.
This thread was helpful, now I'm ready to move on.
Choosing to vote for someone because he pisses off liberals, regardless of what their names are is a good reason. How many folks vote AGAINST the President for no other reason than they decided they didn't like or even hated him.
Voting for him because he is not a Democrat probably should have been higher on my list. It goes beyond simple party loyalty. I choose to vote Republican because by and large, the party's values, choices and supported causes are in line with my own values and beliefs. The value choices and espoused causes of the Democratic Party are often very repellent to me.
Paul
[/ QUOTE ]
That sums it up for me quite well. Also Paul and Scott saved me alot of time for going into a helthy sized list for me. Although, being able to piss off Micheael Moore, and those hollywood prostitutes is more like an added bonus, rather than an added reason for me.
It's like, 'Hey it's my birthday today! I get a free sunday too?!?'
...D'oh!!!...
Glad you liked 'Incredibles'. Haven't seen it yet, but I bet Brad 'Iron Giant' Bird has something to do with its goodness.
Gonna go see if there's a Bush rant in the Incredibles thread!
/jzero
Paul/Scott
I have a feeling everyone who turns their nose up at American Foriegn Policy might have something to learn from an informed conservative opinion.
Paul said:
[ QUOTE ]
His policies are America-First policies.......whether our foreign policy measures up to a "Global Test." America has earned the right to make it's own way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have an idea where this right you speak of comes from. I don't doubt you have a reason too. I would like to hear it, I think I have something to learn from you.
I would like to share mine aswell, and welcome some civil discussion
Very rarely do I ever hear any pro-war enthusaists address the issues that drive terrorists to cut off heads and blow people up. We all deal with bugs in our games, where do we start? We try and figure out where the problem comes from and change the functions that cause it. That is the logical place to start.
When there is an extreme protest of any sort it is an indication of huge problems.
I think Western Politicians are pretending Sept 11th was an attack on freedom when in fact it's a muslim fundamentalist grasp for power based on real problems caused by an agrresive, hypocritical, and immoral foriegn policy. I think i can back up that opinion.
Here's my point: The fact that muslim fundamentalism is brutal is ignoring the pproblem that they are exploiting.
Many people don't feel that american foriegn policy is unjust and, as Paul says, has earned its right to make its own way.
The Monroe doctorine, while admirable in it's oroginal scope, it's mutated and has become a source of arrogence in my opinion.
Now it's no longer "European influence in the western Hemisphere" and has become any influence opposing our brand of capitalism on the planet.
When it was limited to wiping out local indian tribes on your own rock it was a managble goal.
Is it impossible to understand that maybe the deisre not to be controlled by a foriegn influence/ideals/values/culture/religious beliefs isn't limited to the USA? I GW should understand do unto others, as should all those who voted for him and think any of this is justified. Other nations might want to rid their part of the world of foreign influence aswell. Sound reasonable enough for Pres. james Monroe, Why not the people who inhabbit the middle east, or Vietnam, or even Nicaragua.
It's possible that America's right to make it's own way creates the problems it fights internationally. I think it started with Monroe. Scott pointed us to the Brezhnev Doctorine, after reading it I came to these conclusions and copairisons.
-R