[quote]ninjaboner wrote:
Interesting. Most of the examples they give are very, very debatable, but I agree with the general theme: Americans tend to want a President who displays strong leadership. I don’t think there’s any denying that Bush is a strong leader. However, many feel he is leading in the wrong direction.
[/quote]
ninjaboner:
Unfortunately, when dealing with major policy questions, I think you’re going to find that everything is arguable.
The main question is indeed a subjective one: In the matters most important to you, would you prefer the country be led by Kerry or Bush?
Some of these, such as the War on Terror, will be very directly affected by the choice. Others, such as tax rates, Supreme Court nominees, etc., will have a lot to do with how Congress interacts with whoever wins.
Overall, I prefer Bush on my main issues: War on Terror; taxes; and federal court nominations. On areas in which I find Bush weak, such as spending and trade (at least early in his presidency), I think Kerry would be worse. On areas I think Bush would be strong, the positions espoused by Kerry, and his historical positions on issues, lead me to staunchly support Bush.
[Revision: I forgot Social Security and Medicare – I strongly favor Bush’s proposed reforms over Kerry’s decision to hide his head in the sand.]
So, basically, it’s very subjective – subjective to the direction you want the country to go in the areas most important to you, and subjective in which candidate you think will move the country in your desired direction (based on the history of each, as well as how much stock you put in the positions (or lack thereof) of the candidates during the campaign).
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
Bush has never said church and state should be together…thats the dumbest thing i have heard posted in awhile.
Bush has expanded education more so than any other president in history. [/quote]
Bush supports drug/alcohol programs that are faith-based. All of these programs push you toward accepting Christianity as part of the program. They may say, “we’ll try to help you no matter who you are,” but they do discriminate against many because of certain things or because they won’t convert to Christianity. So if you’re a homosexual, Muslim or Jew, and have a drug problem and want to go into one of these rehab programs, you must accept the Christian belief.
That doesn’t sound like a separation of Church and State. And although Kerry supports faith-based rehab programs, he only supports those that do not discriminate as protected by the law.
At the point of expanding education, he has cut pell grants and other financial aid to deserving students. Ask my girlfriend who works 40 hours a week and attends classes how she’s paying for her education now that her pell grants have been cut.
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
what sort of thinking?..not running pussy assed with your cock between your legs when the fight is at your doorstep. [/quote]
It’s reasons like this that I rarely venture into the political forum. Everything turns into a pissing match with constant attacks thrown at someone who doesn’t agree with the masses.
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
Silly liberals never one to let facts get in the way of their own opinions
[/quote]
Because I’m a registered Democrat, does this mean that all democrats are liberals? That term seems to be thrown around an awful lot in this forum. Anyone with an open mind or against conservative/republican views is automatically a “bleeding” liberal or some other hippie-tree hugger term?
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
On september 13th, with the ambers still smoldering where my friends and relatives worked, Dubya visited the Twin Towers, grabbed a bullhorn and said “I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” and he has delivered.
[/quote]
Any president would have done the same thing at that time. It doesn’t take a special leader to realize that. Bush did what any president in his position would do. It doesn’t make him any more a leader than anyone else in his shoes. How he has dealt with things is why I disagree.
I don’t want to get into a huge debate, as I rarely get into the political forum or read and study politics on a daily basis. But there are many reasons why I won’t vote for Bush.
Nate, you’re a good guy but sorely misinformed. Don’t believe the demagoguery of Kerry, I would have never found myself voting along partylines, but taking a step-back, attempting to take the perspective of, perhaps, a foreigner visiting our country, it is obvious that the Democrats will insult the intelligence of 49% of the population to fool the other 51%. BTW, stem-cell researach, MINOR quibble that the Democrats are utilizing for their own means, dishing it out to the sheeple who would believe such nonsense(not saying you are a sheeple, Nate). If stem-cell research was all that it’s cracked up to be, why wouldn’t private organizations eat it up. Do you realize how much a cure for cancer would be worth to a pharmaceutical company, who, btw, have billions in capital to spend on R & D. The reason is simple, the costs outweigh the benefits, and if the benefits are so large, that means they deem it too risky and a foolhardy pursuit. On tax cuts, whew, where do we begin on this? Sparing an entire economics lecture, lets just say that if you put more money into the government, then you’ll get more back as a result of a tax cut, and the weathly are typically the ones that invest their capital. GDP = Consumptiom + Investment + Government spending + Net Exports. Investment and GDP are directly related. But one of the reasons why this election is so heated among Bush supporters is the type of person Kerry is. Fraud, prevaricator, and pusillanimous come to mind. A straight giggilo that lives off the fortunes of other men and attempts to lecture us on middle-class taxes. His whole vietnam facade was nothing but lies (not sure if anyone saw the documentary of vietnam P.O.W) to grant him a rise in power. The scary thing is, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is likely to die soon, and several others retire, and many federal courts await appointments. These guys are there for life, and their interpretation of the law could affect your future and your kids’ future, and liberal judicial activism is definitely not the way to go. On the Separation of Church and State. Not sure where you pulled that from, although the extremees to which we take it today are ridiculous and the whole phrase separation of church and state did not come about until the 60’s. If we live in a nation in which using the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional when pledging allegiance to our country, then it is a sad day indeed.
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
I am certainly not rich and I recieved a tax cut, as did many “poor” people I know
Is it really a refund when taxes are raised?
[/quote]
Please, enlighten me on your expertise of the tax code? I pay less taxes and get a larger refund than ever before, AND I’m not penalized for being married. What are you trying to say here?
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
biltritewave wrote:
Silly liberals never one to let facts get in the way of their own opinions
Because I’m a registered Democrat, does this mean that all democrats are liberals? That term seems to be thrown around an awful lot in this forum. Anyone with an open mind or against conservative/republican views is automatically a “bleeding” liberal or some other hippie-tree hugger term?[/quote]
Some might think so, but the “thinking” conservatives in this forum are fair. We are fair, although sometimes a sarcastic and cynical.
Not all registered Dems are liberals. My lil’ sis is a registered Dem and she voted for Bush. Smart kid. Made her family proud…
thanks Nate, I agree wholeheartedly, personal flaming doesn’t get us anywhere, just shows one’s true colors. Sometimes I may get a little heated about my particular point of view and/or a particular candidate/politician, but I try to respect the circumstances and opinions of others without getting too worked up:)
ABC?s ?Good Morning America? is all Kerry, all the time.
Hey, look! ABC?s Peter Jennings ?caught up with Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry?! Why, what luck! To catch up with the Senator for an interview just a day before the election…why, the Gods must be smiling on ABC, otherwise how to explain the good fortune of this totally coincidental meeting?
And look! It?s time for a ?where is she now? story on Chelsea Clinton. And wouldn?t you know it, Chelsea just happens to be stumping for John Kerry! What are the chances?
And look! It?s a story on people who?ve lost their healthcare. And oops?for this former soldier it happened when the mill shut down. Foreign workers, it seems, are willing to do the same work for $1 a year, so the company up an moved. Most unfortunate of all, however, is that all 3 of the vet?s children suffer from some horrid, flesh-eating disease?the medication for which Daddy can no longer afford. If only stem cell research could save them?
Christ. They must still be smarting from that Curt Schilling interview?
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
biltritewave wrote:
Bush has never said church and state should be together…thats the dumbest thing i have heard posted in awhile.
Bush has expanded education more so than any other president in history.
Bush supports drug/alcohol programs that are faith-based. All of these programs push you toward accepting Christianity as part of the program. They may say, “we’ll try to help you no matter who you are,” but they do discriminate against many because of certain things or because they won’t convert to Christianity. So if you’re a homosexual, Muslim or Jew, and have a drug problem and want to go into one of these rehab programs, you must accept the Christian belief.
That doesn’t sound like a separation of Church and State. And although Kerry supports faith-based rehab programs, he only supports those that do not discriminate as protected by the law.
At the point of expanding education, he has cut pell grants and other financial aid to deserving students. Ask my girlfriend who works 40 hours a week and attends classes how she’s paying for her education now that her pell grants have been cut.
The voters will speak tomorrow.
[/quote]
unfortunately thats not true. whoever told your girlfriend that that is why her pell grant funding is down is seriously mistaken.
"Over the past 5 years we have increased education funding by, on average, 11 percent a year. Higher Education funding was increased for F.Y. 2004, and includes over $16 billion for HEA discretionary authorities. A majority of these discretionary funds are expected to be awarded to students in the form of Pell Grants – over $12 billion is appropriated for these grants. The discretionary total excludes mandatory federal expenditures for the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) and Direct Loan (DL) programs through which students and parents will borrow an estimated $52 billion in FY2004. "
As for your faith base initiatives thing, you are again incorrect. Just because they are run by religious organization doesnt mean they are trying to convert people…correct me if i am wrong on this but I believe AA makes you admit there is a higher authority, doesnt it…I dont think anyone would be opposed to more AA like programs for other vices and problems in our country.
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
I am certainly not rich and I recieved a tax cut, as did many “poor” people I know
Is it really a refund when taxes are raised?
Please, enlighten me on your expertise of the tax code? I pay less taxes and get a larger refund than ever before, AND I’m not penalized for being married. What are you trying to say here?[/quote]
Yeah, I would love to know where that one came from.
[quote]ninjaboner wrote:
Objectively, why should Bush be re-elected?[/quote]
I’ll try to be one of the first few to actually respond to the question at hand, rather than turning this into a left-right altercation.
Personally, I am not voting for Bush, but here are some reasons why I might:
Above all other things that I think Bush did well, he did a stand-up job of making the nation feel secure and patriotic after the 9/11 attacks. I think this may have been the shining moment of his term. [Please everyone, do not respond to this with anything derived from a Michael Moore movie.]
As politicians go, I think President Bush is socially advanced. He connects well to the average American. Yes, he’s rich. No, most Americans do not come from a similar background. However, his speech and mannerisms (although often grammatically unsound) are quite refreshing. This is a quality that Clinton had, as well.
The argument aside that Bush walked into a war and doesn’t really know how to get out of it, he has actually had strong wartime policy. Troops have been well-funded, and there have been no major losses. [No, just over 1000 casualties is not a major loss, in terms of military action. If you think that it is, please visit the Vietnam Memorial.]
I think these are the three strongest areas of the Bush presidency. As I said, I will not be giving my vote to Bush tomorrow. As some might know, my vote will go to Michael Badnarik. As a complete president, I would give Bush a 5/10 rating, totally average. Kerry, I would predict a 6/10.
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
I don’t think the people voting for Bush can really give a good reason. I think many seem to have been brainwashed.
If the war is the reason, it’s not enough of a reason to back Bush. No matter who is president, they will do what it takes to stop terrorism. Even if they have different plans. So you can’t use that as your reasoning, and I think many people are using that as the reason to vote for Bush.
If you think about what he has done in the past four years, is it really what you want for the next four years? It just doesn’t make sense to me. Even Republicans are voting against him.
[/quote]
When 2/3 of those voting for Kerry are voting against Bush - not in support of Kerry, or his plans - I think you have a real credibility problem telling those of us who support Bush that our reasons aren’t good enough.
This is the first war to be televised live. This is the first war that has been waged in the cable news era. You say that Bush is fucking up the war in Iraq? Compare I raq with any of our previous extended campaigns, and you’ll find that we have lost far less than 10% of the casualties of previous engagements. We are keeping our guys safer, while killing more of their guys than ever in our history.
All of this without the blessing of the international community(read France and Germany). Kerry wants to bring these guys to the table at a time when we don’t need them - unless we want to win the monthy international popularity contest.
Bush is for lower taxes. Bush is for a fuck them before they fuck us war on terror.
Kerry wants to raise taxes on the rich - and his definition of rich will soon include those in the 15% bracket. Kerry wants to make sure it’s ok with France before we fart in the middle-east.
To me the choice is clear - but then again I haven’t been sucking at the kool-aid dispenser.
Thank God for people like Terumo, who can look at this like: Bush has done alright, not great but ok. Kerry would probably do alright, not great either. Hmmmm I think instead I’ll take the time to actually learn about ALL the choices of candidates running for president and vote for someone who is genuine and and will really try to serve the people not his own(or his party’s ) interests. I have read all about Badnarik and I think he is at least as good a choice as these two. There is a big problem when people are voting against Bush not pro-Kerry and vice versa. We’ve been given the freedom and the ability to have several candidates but until people stop blindly following a donkey or an elephant, it’ll be status quo no matter who you choose to vote for.
Storey and Terumo: Thank you both very much. And to the people who explained their positions without name-calling: thank you. I was hoping to see critical thinking and honest appraisal to balance out much of what I hear.
343 of my brothers died on 9-11 because of clintons willingness to apease the enemy. Now why would I vote for another democrat (who is so liberal that he makes clinton apear to be conservative)who is willing to apease the enemy and put the worlds concerns before the concerns of the U.S.? 9-11 was the direct result of the U.S. not being on the offensive.
I hate to have to point this out again, but Clinton (and his co-president Hillary?) had the chance to nab bin laden and passed it up. They followed a policy of not wanting to rock the boat in the mid east.
On Tuesday I will vote for Bush because he shares the same ideoligy as me.
Tax cuts work. Period.
The longest economic boom in our nations history was started with the 1980 tax deal signed and pushed by president Reagan, significantly cutting taxes. Know what stopped that economic prosperity? The 1993 tax deal, increasing our nations taxes.
Nations are not taxed into prosperity.
Government cannot create a significant amount of jobs. It can only create an environment where the private sector can create jobs(ie: low taxes).
To sum it up, I will vote for bush because he:
-Lowers taxes for EVERYBODY
-Hunts and kills the terrorists BEFORE they attack us.
-Is adamantly opposed to late term abortion.
-Doesn’t have to take a poll to decide what he wants to do on a certain issue.
-Refuses to worship at the feet of the thugs and dictators that make up the un security council.
