Why are you voting for George W Bush?

[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 :rofl:

 

[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….

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

(Find my counter-post for Kerry in the Why are you voting for Kerry thread)

Pro-Bush Reasoning:
1. Better, more stable economic growth, inlcuging gloablly.
2. Supports small business better.
3. Better plans for advancing, not just funding, education.

Anti-Kerry Reasoning:
1. He can't logistically do what he says he will, unknown stance.
2. Lacks understanding of economics.
3. Debt with eventually crash our economy.

 

[graphic7]

2. Lacks understanding of economics.

You should've seen a show on ABC this morning with George Stephanopalous (sp.). One of the many interviews George conducted this morning involved the campaign leaders of both Kerry and Bush. One question went somewhere along the lines of "What do you plan to do with the deficit, there's only 3 things you can do - raise taxes, decrease funding, or let the deficit keep increasing?". The question was targeted towards the Bush campaign leader who did not give an answer, even George stopped him 30 seconds into his response and told him to answer the question.

The Bush campaign has no plan for the economy, they said so this morning. With that said, they are still searching for one.

You should rephrase your statement to something like, "Anti - Bush 2. still searching for plan for the economy".

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

Well, Bush has stated his plan for the deficit. It involves growing the economy and controlling discretionary spending by congress.

My problem with Kerry's economics is that you cannot retract from global economics by avoiding outsourcing, without cutting off the insourcing of jobs.

"Foreign firms now account for 6% of U.S. jobs vs. 3% in 1987. They also produce 20% of U.S. exports." (IBD 10/20/04)

Further, his job creation initiative falls short, just by doing the math. For every worker hired at $40,000, a firm would save $3,060 in taxes, and only for the years of 2005 and 2006 under Kerry's "New Jobs Tax Credit" plan. (Incidentally, this plan is almost identical to one from the Carter Administration that also failed).

Additionally, increasing the taxes on small businesses (or returning them to their old rates) when 70-80% of new jobs are coming from small businesses, is harmful to job growth.

Lastly, if you listen to what Kerry says, he is unhappy with our slow growth steady economy and wants a faster growing economy. This is dangerous and reckless economics when the Fed. Interest Rate is so low.

Fast paced economic growth is likely to yield a fast inflation. If inflation rises significantly faster then the the Fed. Interest Rate, you run the risk of panicking the market or creating an over-valued market which will later crash. The result is a recession. Worse yet, if the Interest Rate hasn't increased enough during that time, the recession can become a depression, as the interest rate is the easiest and quickest way to protect against or dimish a recession (Props to my Man: Mr. Greenspan, for his quick witted 2000 actions, puttin' a cap in that recessions a$$).

Also, if the Interest Rate increases too fast, consumers will cut personal spending and investment levels will drop. The result is a crashing market and recession (possible depression). This can get even worse by a diminished job market due to reduction of investments.


On the topic of insourcing/sourcing jobs, consider the value of making the U.S. tax code simpler and more attractive to foreign investment instead of Kerry's further complication of the tax code.

"To make the tax code more complicated rather than less complicated is probably not good policy...More and more countries around the world are moving to more transparent and less complicated tax systems." Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, sho further went on to point out that the U.S. should focus more on insourcing by foreign firms, which pay U.S. workers 31% more on average than domestic businesses.


I do agree however, that the deficit and debt are big problems for both candidates. Neither has a legitimate plan to correct the problem. More over, Kerry would be just as spendy, if not more so, as Bush, given his litany of plans.

 

[Genius of Physics]

Dont bee fooled by misusing of the religion people.W bush is doing that.
every War is bringing you As many enemy as the five time more
the world is now in the to parts one with america another against it choose a president who would try to make friend with another countries not only Allies bu´t also neutrals

 

[Gokul43201]

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….

What ?? You can't be serious ??!

If Zantra's wrong on this, so were the UN, NATO and all the heads the every one of the 30 odd countries that participated and the dozens more that supported the War.

So far, you (and Kerry ?) are the only ones to object to Desert Storm.

 

[Zantra]

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….

If you save a guy's life because only he knows the password to your swiss bank account with your life savings in it, does that make it wrong to save him?