News Why are you voting for George W Bush?

[cragwolf]

I'd like to know why people here are voting for George W Bush this election. Try to list three reasons for it. I'm not going to criticize or start some flaming debate over the reasons. I just want to know your reasons.

 

[Zantra]

My guess is 2 categories

1. straight ticket repulicans- they'd vote in Saddam Hussein if he went republican.

2. Think the war in Iraq was justified and think we have a right to start wars and do what we want, because "dammit, we're America"

 

[marlon]

My guess is 2 categories

1. straight ticket repulicans- they'd vote in Saddam Hussein if he went republican.

2. Think the war in Iraq was justified and think we have a right to start wars and do what we want, because "dammit, we're America"

though i am no american and i disagree with the way the US handled Iraq, i think these statements are very simplistic and childish. As a matter of fact I find most of the European criticism on the US-foreign policy to be dishonest and just dumb...

marlon

 

[MiGUi]

I think that Saddam had to be blown off in 1991, that's an enormous error I think. I am with Bush idea to blow of the map those islamic terrorists, appart of it, I don't know how good president he is.

 

[russ_watters]

I honestly wasn't sure until recently that I'd vote for him. He is, afterall, a jackass. But the bottom line is that its better to have a passive (domestic) jackass, not getting in the way of the economy and a gun-toting-Texan on foreign policy than someone who will actively harm the economy and pretend that isolationism works. Anyway, in short:

1. Interventionalist (my word - do you like it?) foreign policy.
2. He won't implement national healthcare.
3. He won't do the typical Democratic things that stifle economic growth (raise taxes, raise the minimum wage, increase government spending(war on terror notwithstanding)).
4. He won't make good-sounding but short-sighted environmental policy (I won't get my hopes up about building new nuclear plants though).

 

[chroot]

Hmm, Russ. This president has been one of the worst economically in many, many years. His administration was the first to see a loss of jobs since the great depression. He has turned an enormous surplus into an even more enormous deficit, one of the largest changes in history. He's done none of the "typical Republican things" like encouraging economic growth.

It sounds to me like he's going to get your vote because you hope he will do "typical Republican things," and I can respect that position. On the other hand, he seems to be pretty lousy at doing those very things.

- Warren

 

[member 5645]

Hmm, Russ. This president has been one of the worst economically in many, many years. His administration was the first to see a loss of jobs since the great depression.


He has turned an enormous surplus into an even more enormous deficit, one of the largest changes in history. He's done none of the "typical Republican things" like encouraging economic growth.

devil's advocate:
That is only accurate if you can 1> see the future 2> Bush loses the election. His administration isn't over, and it is possible he has 4 years to rectify that (and the current trends say that would easily be the case).

Enormous surplus? I'll just chalk that up to subjectivity. I disagree.
However, I am personally unhappy with the lack of fiscal conservativeness in many areas across the board. The current economy has been encouraged to grow, and is doing so.

 

[russ_watters]

It sounds to me like he's going to get your vote because you hope he will do "typical Republican things," and I can respect that position. On the other hand, he seems to be pretty lousy at doing those very things.

- Warren

Though I don't share your bleak view of the economy, I'll certainly grant you that he's a mediocre Republican President, at best. But I still prefer that to even a good Democratic one (and I don't think Kerry would be a good Democratic one).

edit: then again, if a "good" Democratic President is one who succeeds in getting liberal ideas promulgated, then maybe I prefer a mediocre one...

 

[Tsu]

A couple more reasons people will vote for Bush:

1. He is a 'born again' - an extreme fundamentalist Christian - and he speaks to their 'divine' sensibilities. They truly believe he is what he says - a 'Messenger of God'. That's good enough for them!

2. He really appeals to the shallow thinkers of America - the types that just want to go out and 'kick some butt'. They just LOVE what Bush has done in the Middle East.

 

[kat]

Zantra, Chroot, Tsunami...others yet to come,
It's nice to know those who are not voting for Bush have the capability to respect the wishes of the author of the thread...

I'm not going to criticize or start some flaming debate over the reasons.

One reason why I don't feel compelled to listen to Kerry supporters on reasons to vote for or against anyone, they seem to fail the basic test of respect for others ideas and beliefs.

 

[graphic7]

1. He is a 'born again' - an extreme fundamentalist Christian - and he speaks to their 'divine' sensibilities. They truly believe he is what he says - a 'Messenger of God'. That's good enough for them!

Amen.

That's exactly what I've been saying to my peers (the ones that do plan on voting for Bush). I find it absolutely ridiculous that any reasonably intelligent and logical person could vote for Bush, given that he appeals to the religious nature of people. Assuming, you're not religious why in the hell would you vote for Bush? In fact, the reason alone that you're not religious is a reason itself not to vote for Bush.

If I were to vote, Bush's "fundamentalist", "divine", or "whatever you want to call them" religious views, would be *the* reason why I wouldn't vote for him. There's more than just Christians in the nation. Sheesh ...

Zantra, Chroot, Tsunami...others yet to come

Count me in.

One reason why I don't feel compelled to listen to Kerry supporters on reasons to vote for or against anyone, they seem to fail the basic test of respect for others ideas and beliefs.

Now, that's funny!

The supreme reason why I don't like most Republicans, especially the ones that support Bush, is they violate everyone else's beliefs. Not to get off topic, but Bush supporters aren't exactly the most passive and open-minded when it comes to observing other's beliefs.

I thought the idea (or one of the primary ones) of being liberal (a major republican defense), is to repect other's beliefs and not violate them - whether that be Iraq or the Middle East in whole.

kat, very smooth.

 

[Zantra]

though i am no american and i disagree with the way the US handled Iraq, i think these statements are very simplistic and childish. As a matter of fact I find most of the European criticism on the US-foreign policy to be dishonest and just dumb...

marlon

they are simplistic and childish reasons for simplistic and childish replublicans using flimsy excuses to back a simple president. As simplistic as the excuses for iraq. I think the reasons to not vote for Bush are obvious and don't need restating. I'd love to hear some Valid reasons- russ I see has stated something of an articulated response.. do you have anything to add Marlon?

I'd also add that I'm not really a democrat, and nor am I a mindless sheep and fool. So I'll vote my conscience for the greater good of the country.

And I do respect the opinions of others. But a lot of the Bush supports have weak arguments because frankly, the Bush side is a weak stance to support. I see that he just signed off on more corporate tax cuts. Last minute bid for support.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"

I don't know what positive impact Bush has had on this country, but I know what I can do election day to help my country, and I'll do it.

 

[Tsu]

kat -

Sorry to burst your bubble of indignation, but these ARE reasons of 'why you are voting for Bush' (as the thread title indicates) that were not previously mentioned. I have personally heard these reasons from some people. I am not being critical or starting some flaming debate. They are reasons. Period.

Deal with it.

 

[Tsu]

Amen.

That's exactly what I've been saying to my peers (the ones that do plan on voting for Bush). I find it absolutely ridiculous that any reasonably intelligent and logical person could vote for Bush, given that he appeals to the religious nature of people. Assuming, you're not religious why in the hell would you vote for Bush? In fact, the reason alone that you're not religious is a reason itself not to vote for Bush.

If I were to vote, Bush's "fundamentalist", "divine", or "whatever you want to call them" religious views, would be *the* reason why I wouldn't vote for him. There's more than just Christians in the nation. Sheesh ...

That's just it. I'm a fairly strong Christian myself, but he scares the hell out of me! I guess it's just that extreme fundmentalism of ANYTHING scares the hell out of me. But the way some of these people almost view him as the 'second coming of Christ'... Well... I'm pretty uncomfortable with that.

 

[russ_watters]

kat -

Sorry to burst your bubble of indignation, but these ARE reasons of 'why you are voting for Bush' (as the thread title indicates) that were not previously mentioned...

The thing is, we don't appear to have any of those "you"s in this forum. I wonder just how many of them exist...

Further, since I'm not voting for Kerry, I don't think I can speak to why a typical Kerry supporter would vote for him - which is why I didn't post in the thread on that subject. I agree with Kat - its presumptuous.

 

[Tsu]

russ & kat -

I icorrectly assumed that the 'you' was generic. You are quite right. Even though they ARE valid reasons of why someone (and unhappily for me, but good news for you - there seem to be quite a LOT of those types in the rural Oregon area where I reside ) might vote for Bush, they are not MY reasons, as I am not voting for the man! So I guess I'll just get my little self over the the Kerry thread! Sorry for intruding.

I stand corrected and apologize, humbly begging your forgivenesses.

see? Democrats aren't ALL bad...

 

[chroot]

One reason why I don't feel compelled to listen to Kerry supporters on reasons to vote for or against anyone, they seem to fail the basic test of respect for others ideas and beliefs.

Yeah, like all those kind-hearted, tolerant republicans who tore up democratic voter registrations in Nevada and Oregon? I find it outright sad that you, the self-proclaimed enemy of the broad generalization, are perfectly happy labelling all Kerry supporters as *******s.

Right.

- Warren

 

[Tigers2B1]

Here are some reasons ---

While the Democrats are quick to point to Bush as the source of the weak economy ("weak," until recently that is) the economy under Clinton was a result of the 'dot com' gang bang and the tremendous, irrationally exuberant bubble created during that period. The stock market and the economy were on the way down as Clinton moved out of the White House (stealing Ws and pardoning criminals as he went) and was in full fall before Bush even signed his first budget. IMO, any president after Clinton was going to have to take the hit for the bubble burst.* Then there was 9/11.

*By the way --- I think that Presidents can do very little to turn an economy the size of the US's. Just that they can't say it for political reasons. The first candidate to say he doesn't have a major influence on the economy will be the first candidate whose opponent says "Fine, he can't do anything to help with employment BUT I can." IMO, the "economy" is the billions of individual transactions, everyday and all day long. All of those transactions and all of those decisions. No president is at liberty to change our reletivly 'free market' to any great extent. And that 'free market' is the primary force driving the economy.

Since people produce – not the government ---- keeping taxes as low as reasonably possible helps stimulate the economy. Kerry wants to add an additional tax burden on top of the progressively high taxes already paid by that segment of society who are the most productive, per capita.

Bush is actually going to do something to save social security. Privatizing a percentage of social security will help keep the system solvent. Kerry seems content to sit on his hands.

If, god forbid, something were to happen here in the United States on a level of 9/11, or greater, I have no doubt that Bush will use the military might we have when and where it is needed in the on-going effort to fight international terrorism. I have my doubts concerning Kerry --- I wonder if he would strike when and where necessary -- especially after recently referring to international terrorism as a "nuisance."

Tort reform is needed. Kerry and his trial lawyer running mate seem opposed to this. The costs added by medical malpractice insurance, defensive medical procedures, and the jacked-up prices that pharmaceutical must charge in order to sell meds in our litigious friendly environment make our health care system much more expensive than it has to be. Tort reform will take some of the financial presure off of, not just the middle class, but the government programs already in place to help the poor and the elderly.

 

[member 5645]

Reasons I have decided ( finally decided today) to vote for Bush are, but not limited to:
1>Refusal to sign the present Kyoto protocol
2>Has a legit, and plausible, plan for fixing the deficit
3>Won't institute a single payer health care system
4>Economic plan is better competition to China than Kerry's
5>ALL of my friends on the ground in Iraq state that they are being given what is needed to do their jobs. This removed my fear that they are being controlled by politics instead of military need.
6>He doesn't have John Edwards on his ticket
7>Won't insitute a higher federal minimum wage
8>Possible Free Trade Zone of the Americas


Bush is mediocre, sure, but this election is pretty much the lesser of two evils.

 

[member 5645]

A couple more reasons people will vote for Bush:

1. He is a 'born again' - an extreme fundamentalist Christian - and he speaks to their 'divine' sensibilities. They truly believe he is what he says - a 'Messenger of God'. That's good enough for them!

2. He really appeals to the shallow thinkers of America - the types that just want to go out and 'kick some butt'. They just LOVE what Bush has done in the Middle East.

You make me very glad I didn't decide to vote like you.

Perhaps by 2008 you'll have found a manner in which to attract voters to your side of the aisle.

 

[chroot]

phatmonkey,

Wouldn't you agree it's pretty stupid for anyone (including you) to vote against a candidate simply because they don't like the people who vocally support that candidate?

- Warren

 

[BobG]

Here's an interesting link that might explain why a large number of folks support Bush. It's a poll comparing the perceptions voters have of Iraq, the war on terror, the world's opinion of Iraq, etc. grouped by Bush supporters and Kerry supporters.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

72% of Bush supporters believe Iraq had WMD or a WMD program prior to the US invasion. 26% of Kerry supporters think this.

57% of Bush supporters think the Duelfer report concluded Iraq had WMD or a WMD program. 23% of Kerry supporters think this.

75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq supported Al-Qaeda, with 20% believing Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. 30% of Kerry supporters believe Iraq supported Al-Qaeda and 8% think Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.

57% of Bush supporters think the 9/11 Commission said Iraq supported Al-Qaeda. 27% of Kerry supporters believe this.

58% of Bush supporters believe the US should not have gone to war if Iraq didn't have WMD or didn't support Al-Qaeda, while 61% believe Bush would not have gone to war without evidence of the above. 92% of Kerry supporters believe the US should not have gone to war without evidence of WMD or support for terrorism, but 83% believe Bush would have gone to war, evidence or no evidence.

31% of Bush supporters believe the world at large oppose the US invasion of Iraq. 44% believe the Arab community oppose the US 'war on terrorism'. 74% of Kerry supporters believe the world opposes the US invasion and 75% believe the Arab world opposes the US war on terrorism.

69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 72% believe he supports the treaty banning land mines, 53% believe he supports an International Criminal Court, and 51% believe he supports the Kyoto treaty.

Of the issues polled, the majority of Bush supporters correctly identified his position on only two foreign policy issues: Defense spending (57%) and who should take the lead in Iraqi reconstruction (70%).

Only 43% of Kerry supporters correctly identified Kerry's position on defense spending, but at least 65% of Kerry supporters correctly identified Kerry's position on all the other foreign policy issues polled.

Summary: You can probably count on about 25% of people to be pretty ignorant of the world's events. Bush supporters exceed this. Over half of Bush supporters are ignorant about what goes on in the world at large. In fact, over half of them don't even understand what Bush stands for (of course, to be fair, Bush has not spent that much time in explaining his own positions - it's been more beneficial to call Kerry names).

Edit: Actually, averaging the poll results, I guess you could conclude about 40% of the US population is pretty clueless about world affairs, but that's just to depressing to even believe.

 

[member 5645]

phatmonkey,

Wouldn't you agree it's pretty stupid for anyone (including you) to vote against a candidate simply because they don't like the people who vocally support that candidate?

- Warren

Absolutey. What's your point?

 

[Zantra]

Here's an interesting link that might explain why a large number of folks support Bush. It's a poll comparing the perceptions voters have of Iraq, the war on terror, the world's opinion of Iraq, etc. grouped by Bush supporters and Kerry supporters.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

72% of Bush supporters believe Iraq had WMD or a WMD program prior to the US invasion. 26% of Kerry supporters think this.

57% of Bush supporters think the Duelfer report concluded Iraq had WMD or a WMD program. 23% of Kerry supporters think this.

75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq supported Al-Qaeda, with 20% believing Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. 30% of Kerry supporters believe Iraq supported Al-Qaeda and 8% think Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.

57% of Bush supporters think the 9/11 Commission said Iraq supported Al-Qaeda. 27% of Kerry supporters believe this.

58% of Bush supporters believe the US should not have gone to war if Iraq didn't have WMD or didn't support Al-Qaeda, while 61% believe Bush would not have gone to war without evidence of the above. 92% of Kerry supporters believe the US should not have gone to war without evidence of WMD or support for terrorism, but 83% believe Bush would have gone to war, evidence or no evidence.

31% of Bush supporters believe the world at large oppose the US invasion of Iraq. 44% believe the Arab community oppose the US 'war on terrorism'. 74% of Kerry supporters believe the world opposes the US invasion and 75% believe the Arab world opposes the US war on terrorism.

69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 72% believe he supports the treaty banning land mines, 53% believe he supports an International Criminal Court, and 51% believe he supports the Kyoto treaty.

Of the issues polled, the majority of Bush supporters correctly identified his position on only two foreign policy issues: Defense spending (57%) and who should take the lead in Iraqi reconstruction (70%).

Only 43% of Kerry supporters correctly identified Kerry's position on defense spending, but at least 65% of Kerry supporters correctly identified Kerry's position on all the other foreign policy issues polled.

Summary: You can probably count on about 25% of people to be pretty ignorant of the world's events. Bush supporters exceed this. Over half of Bush supporters are ignorant about what goes on in the world at large. In fact, over half of them don't even understand what Bush stands for (of course, to be fair, Bush has not spent that much time in explaining his own positions - it's been more beneficial to call Kerry names).

Edit: Actually, averaging the poll results, I guess you could conclude about 40% of the US population is pretty clueless about world affairs, but that's just to depressing to even believe.

From this we can conclude that there are a lot of sheep out there.. bahhhhh bahh

 

[member 5645]

From this we can conclude that there are a lot of sheep out there.. bahhhhh bahh

Like the bandwagon that attacked this thread? Unable to go to the 'why are voting for Kerry' thread??
I can describe the lot of you no better than "trolls".
Seriously, save this crap for another thread.

 

[chroot]

Absolutey. What's your point?

Your statement You make me very glad I didn't decide to vote like you. Perhaps by 2008 you'll have found a manner in which to attract voters to your side of the aisle. indicates that the attitude of individual Kerry supporters has reinforced your decision to vote for Bush. That's stupid.

- Warren

 

[Zantra]

Like the bandwagon that attacked this thread? Unable to go to the 'why are voting for Kerry' thread??
I can describe the lot of you no better than "trolls".
Seriously, save this crap for another thread.

I've already been to that thread.. I'm just hitting on all fronts.. or should I say "kicking butt".. hehehehe

 

[kat]

Yeah, like all those kind-hearted, tolerant republicans who tore up democratic voter registrations in Nevada and Oregon?
I find it outright sad that you, the self-proclaimed enemy of the broad generalization, are perfectly happy labelling all Kerry supporters as *******s.

Right.

- Warren

Or those kinded hearted Kerry supporters who shot into the Republican headquarters...or ripped a little girls sign up...or barged into and intimidated young women at another headquarters...etc. etc.. but you're right I should not have made such a blanket statement because I have had some very good conversations with Kerry supporters. A more appropriate statement would have been "One reason why I don't feel compelled to listen to SEVERAL OF THE Kerry supporters ON THIS FORUM in regard to... reasons to vote for or against anyone, IS THAT they seem to fail the basic test of respect for others ideas and beliefs."

 

[member 5645]

Your statement You make me very glad I didn't decide to vote like you. Perhaps by 2008 you'll have found a manner in which to attract voters to your side of the aisle. indicates that the attitude of individual Kerry supporters has reinforced your decision to vote for Bush. That's stupid.

- Warren

No it doesn't.


Warren, I have seen you twist kat's words.
You made an assumption, created a fallacy, and then called that it stupid.
I don't owe you any explanation so long as you are going to continue to make assumptions. Get a new thread.
VVVVVVV

 

[chroot]

No it doesn't.

Stunning rationalization.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

The pots in here really need to see what the kettle is actually up to in that other thread...

[hint: nothing]

 

[Stanley_Smith]

There have been many great answers posted, I'd like to add this:
Lots of people say they'll vote for Kerry just simply because they don't like Bush; seems like these are the Micheal Moore's people... it's pretty sad that there are tons of people change who they'll vote for over nite, just after watching fahrenheit 911 !...

There is no difference between the anti-war activists in the Vietnam War back in the 70s and these anti-war protesters these days...

People who vote for Bush believe that he'll do anything to protect Americans and american ALLIES in time of war like now...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A couple more reasons people will vote for Bush:

1. He is a 'born again' - an extreme fundamentalist Christian - and he speaks to their 'divine' sensibilities. They truly believe he is what he says - a 'Messenger of God'. That's good enough for them!

2. He really appeals to the shallow thinkers of America - the types that just want to go out and 'kick some butt'. They just LOVE what Bush has done in the Middle East.

These are core groups from the Bush supporters. They deserve representation. Bush is a messenger of God and people really should know that.

 

[chroot]

If Bush stays in power, we soon won't have any allies to protect.

And it seems rather backwards to tout Bush as a protector in this time of war, when he is almost single-handedly responsible for starting the war.

- Warren

 

[Ivan Seeking]

btw, I didn't mean to imply that he's a false prophet or anything like that. We're talking about divine guidance here.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wow ! I thought this thread was titled "why are you voting for Bush ?"

 

[kawikdx225]

Here are my reasons for voting Bush, since you asked.

1. Bush is a leader, Kerry is a follower.

2. If I want to live in a socialist country I'll move to a socialist country, I like capitalism.

3. I'm smart enough to know that Bush is not responsible for the poor economy and his tax cuts helped slow the recession.

4. The US will probably be attacked again by terrorism and the thought of kerry at the wheel scares me. Why on Earth did Skerry vote against the first Gulf war?

5. I'm not voting for Bush because of his religion, I'm an athiest.

6. Kerry is all talk and no go, Bush is all go and no talk. If I have to choose then I prefer the latter.

7. If something bad happened to the president during his term I would feel more comfortable with Cheney as president than with Edwards.

8. Kerry's voting record is so liberal that he makes Michael Moore look conservative.

9. The comments made by Kerry and Edwards about Cheney's daughter were pathetic and showed their true character.

These are just a few of the larger issues.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Umm - since this clearly ISN'T the Why are you voting for George W. Bush thread - I'll post this. Something on the lighter side – the statement where Kerry seems to admit to war crimes – but then (you guessed it!) he doesn't ----You've heard the story – now read it.

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned you're a military guy. There's been a lot of discussion about Bob Kerrey, your former Democratic colleague in the Senate, about his talking about his anguish about what happened in Vietnam . You were on this program 30 years ago as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And we went back and have an audiotape of that and some still photos. And your comments are particularly timely in this overall discussion of Bob Kerrey. And I'd like for you to listen to those with our audience and then try to put that war into some context:

(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End audiotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Thirty years later, you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man….

http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

"Angry young man?" Why not "lying young man?" I mean it ain't true - per Kerry today - right? Or maybe a "lying, ambitious young man" - but an "angry young man?" nope --- I don't believe it. During the debates Kerry showed us his full range of emotions - running all the way from Emotion A to Emotion B. And he was trying then -- But I digress --

 

[member 5645]

Wow ! I thought this thread was titled "why are you voting for Bush ?"

Despite all of our disagreements, I appreciate your input on this forum very much Glokul.

 

[cragwolf]

I just wanted to add that I appreciate all of your responses. They're very interesting. It does not bother me that people take this thread into directions I did not intend. I don't own the thread, I merely started it; I'm not arrogant enough to believe that its subsequent direction should be dictated by me. Not everyone can answer my question, since obviously not everyone here is voting for Bush. If those who aren't voting for Bush want to contribute to this thread, who am I to stop them? Perhaps they have interesting points of view to share. Same goes for the Kerry thread. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. Carry on, by all means.

 

[Zantra]

There have been many great answers posted, I'd like to add this:
Lots of people say they'll vote for Kerry just simply because they don't like Bush; seems like these are the Micheal Moore's people... it's pretty sad that there are tons of people change who they'll vote for over nite, just after watching fahrenheit 911 !...

There is no difference between the anti-war activists in the Vietnam War back in the 70s and these anti-war protesters these days...

People who vote for Bush believe that he'll do anything to protect Americans and american ALLIES in time of war like now...

That's great but.. who's going to protect u.s. from BUSH? I did state that I just don't want to vote Bush, and I just get tired of making the same statements over and over again, when it's been said but multiple people multiple times. READ MY LIPS: "NO MORE PRIVACY"

That's what we're agreeing to. I refuse to sacrifice personal rights and freedom in the alledged name of protection. I refuse to watch a budget chipped away even further when it's already been the largest drop in history. I refuse to vote for someone just because he lacks so much finesse that he pissed off most of our allies to wage what has amounted to his own personal vendetta. I refuse to vote for someone who, as the leader of the free world, can't get through a simple speech without stuttering. Someone who everyone says is smart, but can't handle a simple question that wasn't anticipated. Who surrounds himself with his father's old cabinet members and other intelligent people, but doesn't give us the sense that he could make a choice between salt and pepper without someone whispering in his ear. A person who I could actually see launching nukes because he had to be a big stud and show everyone who's boss. Yes we're the biggest country in the world, but if it's 50 to 1, we're still going to loose, and people don't seem to get that. I hear a lot of Bush people being "gung ho", but not really thinking it through. Sothat's how I see it, and I do know a lot of Bush supporters, and that's the general sense that I get from them. And I don't see those as valid reasons, and that's simply my opinion

 

[Microburst]

If I decide to vote for bush , I'll only do so for the following...

1. Skits on SNL sound much more funnier with someone like Bush in the Whitehouse.
2. Lifespan of an average American will be lot shorter thanks to his environmental policies. (Cancer/s are so damn common now)
3. Me losing all capacity to deal with reality.

Sound cynical? Think again…

Iraq never attacked America, America attacked Iraq...

 

[member 5645]

Iraq never attacked America, America attacked Iraq...

What do you consider America? Our planes, enforcing an international agreed on armistace came under constant fire. That is an act of war, but we some how let it happen for a decade with no real response.
Does someone have to attack inside our borders to attack us? Considering our trade deficit, I'm going to argue that attacking our livliehood is just the same.

 

[Microburst]

Gulf was wrong , Gulf [II] was wrong, we had no business meddling in middle-east politics. What we should do is look for alternative energy sources, after all life existed before petroleum. Our planet only has a limited reserve, what would you do after that runs out??

 

[member 5645]

Gulf was wrong ,

Nevermind. You just ended this conversation.

 

[Tsu]

You make me very glad I didn't decide to vote like you.

Perhaps by 2008 you'll have found a manner in which to attract voters to your side of the aisle.

I don't WANT people who think like you on my side of the aisle. Stay where you are. You fit in just fine.

 

[Zantra]

Gulf was wrong , Gulf [II] was wrong, we had no business meddling in middle-east politics. What we should do is look for alternative energy sources, after all life existed before petroleum. Our planet only has a limited reserve, what would you do after that runs out??

SO defending kuwait was wrong?.. you're right we should have just let saddam kill everyone and that country and laughed at the situation. If you're going for the oil angle, it was still the right thing to do, regardless of motives.

And the #1 top 10 reason I'm not voting for Bush (elaborate drumroll...)

1. Dan Quayle misspelled potato, but at least he doesn't make up new words-So Bush is a bigger idiot than Dan Quayle.

 

[Mazuz]

1. Dan Quayle misspelled potato, but at least he doesn't make up new words-So Bush is a bigger idiot than Dan Quayle.

Maybe the brain implants designed to manipulate the minds of our figure head leaders stifle moral reasoning and as an adverse side affect can sometimes destroy intelligence

 

[BobG]

Gulf was wrong , Gulf [II] was wrong, we had no business meddling in middle-east politics. What we should do is look for alternative energy sources, after all life existed before petroleum. Our planet only has a limited reserve, what would you do after that runs out??

I'd have to disagree with half of this. Maintaining stability in the oil region was a good thing (Gulf I). Creating instability in the oil region is a bad thing (Gulf II).

That's not the only difference.

The first was professonally done. Creating an international coalition in fact (vs token samples), consisting of other Arab states, and smoothing the way for Israel to not get involved was a truly impressive accomplishment. The decision to stop short of invading Iraq was made for valid reasons based on sound analysis of the information.

In general, decisions were group decisions - inputs from the experts were listened to and formed the final decision.

The second was botched from the beginning. The decision was made on bad analysis of information - and Bush had to choose the only bad analysis in spite of other, better analysis about information. Implementation was also bad. Getting UN backing would have been the best option. Invading first assuming the UN would fall in line would have been a doable option. Seeking UN backing, failing to get it, and then invading anyway was the way most likely to alienate the most potential allies. The committed coalition consists of the US, Great Britain, and Australia. The remainder of the 'coalition' has been token representation and unreliable representation, at that. While Rumsfield's vision for a new way of fighting war was validated in one sense, it doesn't work for invasions. You not only have to be able to beat the enemy forces, you also have to be able to handle occupation of a country afterwards.

In general, decisions were made 'from the gut' at the top and the experts were expected to find a way to make the decisions work.

 

[Microburst]

SO defending kuwait was wrong?.. you're right we should have just let saddam kill everyone and that country and laughed at the situation. If you're going for the oil angle, it was still the right thing to do, regardless of motives.

And the #1 top 10 reason I'm not voting for Bush (elaborate drumroll...)

1. Dan Quayle misspelled potato, but at least he doesn't make up new words-So Bush is a bigger idiot than Dan Quayle.

LOL! ... But seriously we never interfered in Iran Iraq war to the degree we did in that stupid gulf [protect the oil] war. Zantra you know it was wrong now admit it... I mean really who cares? why do we go there man if not for oil??

Bush and Cheney team reminds me of the cartoon Pinky and the Brain. Cheney being the brain of course….