why do you support bush?

[r1dermon]

honestly, i really can't understand why so many people support bush. i'd like some reasons. and please, make them factual. nothing like "because he is the best to protect us against terror" because bush has had a chance as president and kerry has not. therefore its all speculation that kerry will do bad. i dont want comparisons. i want some reasons for why you(if you do) support bush.

[Lance]

Because I know he is not just telling me what I want to hear. He would tell me the same things even if I didn’t want to hear it. He is consistent and he has convictions about his morals.

 

I also have no real idea of what Kerry stands for anymore. Over and over he has changed his mind. People are calling him the wind vain. And even if he was straight forward I doubt I would agree with what he stands for anyway. I also don’t trust that he will do much of anything. I think it’s pretty stupid to change presidents in the middle of a 'war' anyway.

 

I really don’t agree with a lot of things democrats say anyway but I don’t vote for people simply because they are republicans.

[budullewraagh]

Because I know he is not just telling me what I want to hear

are you bloody serious? he refuses to recognize the facts about iraq! he has yet to regard the war as a poor decision, even though every piece of support he can muster up is false. he continuously denies problems with the economy, and chooses not to address it. he refuses to address the situation in sudan as well as north korea, and cannot bring it upon himself to apologize for not capturing bin laden when we had him cornered. how can people possibly support him AND manage to tie their own shoes?

[/rant]

[Sayonara]

Can I point out for future reference in this thread that saying why you don't support Kerry is not answering the question.

[Pangloss]

I'll answer your question, but the moment this turns into a partisan slug-fest, I'm done. I'm undecided and independent, not a Bush partisan, so ideological arguments carry zero weight with me. If you're just looking for a platform to spin partisan rhetoric from, I'm not interested. But I do have reasons to vote for Bush (as well as reasons to vote for Kerry) so I am able to answer your question, such as it was asked.

 

 

1) The economy is improving. We've recovered from the late Clinton-era recession, and we're moving forward again. LEI is up, with a growth rate equal to or (sometimes) surpassing Clintonian levels (I'm a Clinton fan, by the way, so don't take all this Clinton mentioning as an attack), and the only real remaining negative indicators are unemployment, which is a *lagging* indicator and has shown massive improvement over the last year or so (we might get ten million new jobs in the next term from *either* president), and inflation, which is being watched by the best set of eyes in the business (Greenspan), and is so far showing signs of remaining under control.

 

 

2) The war on terror. Taliban out of power. Hussein out of power. Massive numbers of Al Qaeda behind bars (yeah I know, already replaced, but THESE guys are behind bars). Point being: None of these three amazing things would have happened under Al Gore, or John Kerry. Period. No foreign power would have accomplished them either. Now instead of an Iraq that was flagrantly violating UN sanctions (sometimes with the express cooperation of major world powers!), we have an Iraq that has a chance at Democracy. Is it a foregone conclusion? No way. May not happen. But it's possible.

 

I want to point out that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, in that I think it cost us too much in the political sense. But from a moral, ethical and legal position, it was the right thing to do.

 

 

3) Corporate Corruption. Unlike his predecessor Janet Reno, who seemed to go out of her way to let anyone get away with anything so long as they contributed money to the Democratic party, John Ashcroft has actually done something about this issue. Prosecutions of corporate CEOs were UNHEARD OF in the 1990s. Now they're FREQUENT. The list of corporate executives on trial is staggering: WorldCom. Enron. Adelphia. Martha Stewart. Arthur Andersen. HBOC. HealthSouth. Rite Aid. The list goes on and on.

 

We're talking about over 250 CONVICTIONS for corporate fraud! Not ONE major CEO went to jail under Janet Reno, whose time in office is better remembered for Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzoles, and ignoring independent counsels than for fighting corporate injustice. Even though they were doing EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS they got caught for under Ashcroft. Ask the former employees of Arthur Andersen and Enron if they are happier with or without those convictions.

 

Teddy Roosevelt would be proud. I know I am.

 

 

4) Privacy and Freedom Concerns. This is actually my biggest area of concern about the Bush administration -- namely Jose Padilla, Guantanamo Bay, and the Patriot Act. But the key here is that they are CONCERNS. If we were looking at thousands of Jose Padilla's then I would look at this differently. The fact that it's just one or two cases tells me that we're exploring something here that may, in fact, actually need to be explored, from a legal perspective (this is how precedents are set). As for the Patriot Act, the concerns here are important, but there are also aspects of it which make sense and NEED to be explored (if you check out a library book, you're TELLING a government agency what you're reading! Hello! Doesn't that throw right-to-privacy out the window? Isn't that a reasonable point of view?).

 

I'm still very concerned about privacy and freedom issues under a Bush second term. But I'm confident enough in our checks and balances and general common sense in this country. We can explore these issues without becoming a police state, and it's probably a good thing for us in the long run to explore them right out in the open rather than have someone come along at another time, when we're not looking, and blind-side us.

 

 

5) Democracy for Iraq. What an incredible opportunity. Thank god we have men and women willing to give their lives for such a noble cause in this jaded, forgetful, inattentive, disrespectful age. I wish it wasn't necessary, but there it is. Let's not insult them by drawing comparisons with Vietnam (of all things!). And let's not let the Iraqis down by saying things like "well they aren't ready" or "their religion won't let them have it". What HUBRIS! Let's give them a chance. (BTW, I'm not saying John Kerry would pull us out of Iraq. I'm saying that Bush will give Iraq a better chance at democracy.)

 

 

Now before you folks go off on me and call me a partisan, remember -- I said I am *undecided*. That means I have reasons which are equally compelling (to me) to vote for John Kerry. But that wasn't the question that was asked here. I've answered only the question that was asked. Please keep that in mind. Thanks.

 

(In fact I think I've already stated my reasons why I might vote for Kerry in another thread.)

[jattaway]

Anyone who is more interested in saying what people want to hear rather than what he thinks has no business leading the most powerful nation in the world.

 

George Bush is consistant in his views, and does what he says. Those are very important traits as far as I am concerned.

 

From a political standpoint, I agree with nothing the left pushes. I believe they are attempting to enslave segments of our population through entitlements just has been done to the American Indian. Dependant people are not free. For me, the left has tried to replace working for what you want in life with a fat government who will give it to them so long as they continue to get their vote. This is doomed to failure, and while republicans are not much better they are by far the lesser of evils.

 

I will vote for a democrat if he expresses a conviction to return the government to state control and shrink the federal government (e.g. Zell Miller) or I will vote for an independant if the democrat running is not a clear danger to the US (e.g. Kerry).

[Lance]

How about because he's not Kerry?

[budullewraagh]

1) The economy is improving.

2) The war on terror.

hussein had nothing to do it, and we continue to ignore saudi arabia, (the real place where terrorists are (in order to keep our oil contracts)) iran, north korea (the place we let obtain nukes) and the genocide in sudan.

 

3) Corporate Corruption.

so we crucify martha stewart for a few illegal actions but we let it slide when it comes to ken lay who personally screwed over the majority of the country. and then there's dick cheney, our vice president, who, as ceo of halliburton evaded taxes by commandeering a "headquarters" on some island whose population is 0 (and nobody works at the hq by the way), illegally traded with rogue regimes and sanctioned nations, and received no-bid contracts for 5x the required price to rebuild iraq.

4) Privacy and Freedom Concerns

actually there are quite a few padillas.

http://www.patriotwatch.org/

5) Democracy for Iraq

still does not justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. lacked actual civilian support. cost us our record surplus, plunged us into debt greater than ever before. it just isn't good. and really, has this happened yet? nope. will it happen? perhaps, but it will be limited. i know that the polls will be attacked. i know that people will die trying to vote. i know the election will end up being less htan legitimate.

[Douglas]

honestly, i really can't understand why so many people support bush. i'd like some reasons. and please, make them factual. nothing like "because he is the best to protect us against terror" because bush has had a chance as president and kerry has not. therefore its all speculation that kerry will do bad. i dont want comparisons. i want some reasons for why you(if you do) support bush.

Forgetting about Bush and Kerry, I prefer the Republican party's philosophy. In my opinion, the Republicans lean toward the independence of the American people, where the Democrats lean toward the people being reliant on the Gov't......I.E. Socialism.

[budullewraagh]

George Bush is consistant in his views, and does what he says.

AND SCREWS THE WORLD!

 

From a political standpoint, I agree with nothing the left pushes. I believe they are attempting to enslave segments of our population through entitlements just has been done to the American Indian. Dependant people are not free. For me, the left has tried to replace working for what you want in life with a fat government who will give it to them so long as they continue to get their vote. This is doomed to failure, and while republicans are not much better they are by far the lesser of evils.

the propagandists that have corrupted your mind be damned. seriously, back up your statement involving enslaving the population of the us. honestly, that is incredibly absurd. "Dependant people are not free." fools should be dependant so they dont screw over themselves and the rest of us. here's a case: man is walking along by the border between north and south korea. man is told not to move towards the line. man continues to walk, steps on one of those thermonuclear land mines and everyone dies as the third world war ensues. and oh how stupid people can be. a large government actually has nothing to do with hindering your ability to work for what you want unless they encroach on your constitutional rights. hmm, patriot act anybody? yep, according to the patriot act, the government can arrest anybody without a warrant, hold them for any amount of time they wish and not give them access to a lawyer or a phone call, or the justice system. that sounds a bit "big". that sounds a bit "wrong".

[budullewraagh]

Forgetting about Bush and Kerry, I prefer the Republican party's philosophy. In my opinion, the Republicans lean toward the independence of the American people, where the Democrats lean toward the people being reliant on the Gov't......I.E. Socialism.

republicans dont lean towards the independence of the american people (see above post mentioning patriot act). if you speak of economic independence, i must say that i believe that social security is one of the best things that has ever happened to us. this way we all benefit and nobody ends up getting the shaft when their (potentially) mindless investments get the shaft by even bigger business. ever see a 401k go down the drain? i have. ever see social security fail? no, you never have. social security is a left socialist principle and it has probably saved you or your family from more or less screwing yourselves with poor investments.

[Lance]

...it has probably saved you or your family from more or less screwing yourselves...

 

Ah... there it is. The principle that we will screw ourselves without the government dictating what we do. Don't you think we should be able to screw ourselves if we so desire? I don’t see why I should pay when somebody else does screw themself over either.

[Douglas]

Hey budullewraagh, Clearly, the deficit goes up as the years go by, though Clinton *did* have a surplus. Your graph is something the democrats would advertise.

The deficit doesn't mean crap. What's important, is the deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product. Bush is running about 4%, about the same as Clinton in '93, and much less that Reagan around '84 at about 6%.

[LucidDreamer]

I rather like pangloss's response. He provided actual reasons instead of calling Kerry a waffle, or whatever it is they call him. I would agree with number 3. It's a plus in favor of the Bush administration. I do think they tried to make too much of an example out of Martha Stewart though. Of course, I could be biased by the fact that it seems twisted to imprison America's number 1 homemaker.

[budullewraagh]

Ah... there it is. The principle that we will screw ourselves without the government dictating what we do. Don't you think we should be able to screw ourselves if we so desire? I don’t see why I should pay when somebody else does screw themself over either.

freedom needs to be restricted in this case. you see, people generally aren't out to bankrupt themselves. unfortuantely corporate jackasses bankrupt their companies, take more than enough money so that they live well for the rest of their lives, and end up screwing the investors who had made a "safe and sound" investment. never see that happen with social security.

"I don’t see why I should pay when somebody else does screw themself over either"

i never said you should. the left is not even suggesting that actually. we just support social security, the only true sound investment.

[Lance]

From where then do you think this money is going to come then? If not from tax then the deficit would be even larger.

[Douglas]

budullewraagh

ever see a 401k go down the drain? i have. ever see social security fail?

Have you ever seen the stock market go down over a 40 or 45 year period ?(working life of the average person)

Have I ever seen social security fail? YUP, when you die at 62. You don't get a dime.

 

I'll take the Republican plan, part of SS goes into investments, which your kids keep when you kick the bucket.

[Mad Mardigan]

 

Look at the graph, it is going down during Clinton term, hmm. It doesnt show the .com boom and bust either.

[budullewraagh]

From where then do you think this money is going to come then? If not from tax then the deficit would be even larger.

i find it amusing that you're arguing against something you do not understand. it totally erodes your reasons for arguing against social security. the money comes from the government. pretty much what happens is you pay money until you are older, then you get more money. nothing wrong with that, or cornbread for that matter.

 

Have I ever seen social security fail? YUP, when you die at 62. You don't get a dime.

i really dont see the problem with that. it's better than gambling and losing

[Lance]

i find it amusing that you're arguing against something you do not understand. it totally erodes your reasons for arguing against social security.

 

Doh... Sorry, I was arguing about health care... got a bit confused

 

Fo shizzle.

[r1dermon]

wow, this thread blew up...lol. thanks sayonara "Can I point out for future reference in this thread that saying why you don't support Kerry is not answering the question." i dont want this thread to be a flame war. so please, lets get back on the topic of "why do you support bush" right now we're republican policy vs. democrat policy. in particular, budullewragh, i'm looking for bush supporters responses, as to why they support him. i dont want this to get into an out of hand policy battle. thanks

[budullewraagh]

The deficit doesn't mean crap.

it does when the world bank lowers your credit. the world bank is powerful, more so than you would imagine. in the late 1770s and throughout the 1780s, the united states had no economic ties, and nobody would trade with them. only france and spain would lend the us money for us to pay our debts, and at incredibly high interest rates. yes, we were screwed at that time. yes, it means something; shays' rebellion happened.

 

Look at the graph, it is going down during Clinton term, hmm. It doesnt show the .com boom and bust either.

yup, it went down ever so slightly about a month before clinton left office...but hey, LETS BLAME HIM!

[budullewraagh]

oops, didnt see your post. my regrets. if you wish to delete the above post, feel free to do so, mods.

[r1dermon]

no problem. im just trying to get an overview of all the people who are misled by this administration, and what commonalities they have in their thinking. im not trying to pick a fight, im just conducting a study...if you will.

[Mad Mardigan]

Bud,watch this for awhile http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

 

no problem. im just trying to get an overview of all the people who are misled by this administration, and what commonalities they have in their thinking. im not trying to pick a fight, im just conducting a study...if you will.

 

So you dont think Kerry would mislead anyone? And you think we are all mindless zombies that believes what everything someone says?