For the Bush Bashers: An honest question

[jthomas666]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by CrimsonNan:
The Bush haters don't have a reason to be for Kerry - they just hate Bush and want him out of office.

You're whistling Dixie if you think you'll get a logical reason out of the liberal leftists for voting for Kerry.</font>

Nan-

Posts like this are what make attempting to discuss politics on this board so frustrating. Just because YOU cannot see a logical reason why someone might want to vote for Kerry does not mean that such a reason doesn't exist.

Thinking that Bush has done such a bad job that anything else is a viable alternative, is as valid a reason for casting a vote as thinking that Bush is the savior of democracy.

I don't like Kerry, but I'd rather give him a shot that find out what Bush will do given four years in which he DOESN'T have to pander for votes. The bottom line is that we do not have good options in this year's race.

Hugs and kisses,

------------------
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he had read made him mad." -- George Bernard Shaw

 

[TexasTide]

Bamaro,

And you think Kerry will accomplish these things how? (by the way, there is adult stem cell research, and many believe it to be more useful and effective, and not immoral).


jt666,

What are the logical reasons? All we ever get are posts like Bamaro's, full of things that are just flat out untrue.

 

[Bamalaw92]

You REALLY need to get out more. Also, I would suggest you start reading more often.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bamaro:

Originally posted by TiderinMiss:
I've seen more hate thrown around for our current president than I have for any previous ones. I have read the rhetoric over the past couple of months, and basically, many of you are literally screaming that Bush must go.

So here's my question:

What's the alternative?

John Kerry?

</font>

Well yes. Kerry is far from perfect but Bush is not far from incompetent.

Easily dismissed as empty rhetoric. Iraq was and is a success, the economy is in great shape, the rest of the world indeed respects us.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Kerry can rebuild the respect with the rest of the world that Bush has trashed.</font>

Bush has the world's respect if not their admiration. These are different things. Of course you and your liberal bretheren feel that the views of the terrorists are the views shared by the rest of the world. Try traveling some.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Kerry can stop spending like a drunken sailor.</font>

What government programs and spending would you suggest cutting out? (The Iraq war effort is not an option)

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Kerry can defend the environment. </font>

List even one instance of Bush not "defending the environment".

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Kerry can get us back to a balanced budget. </font>

Not by fiscal conservatism, but by increased taxes and socialization.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Kerry can remove the ban on embryonic stem cell research,</font>

A completely MORONIC thing to do unless you want to lower humanity to the status of a crop.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Kerry can fight terrorism where it exists (NOT in Iraq - at least not until a year ago!),</font>

Only a blind fool would say there was no terrorism supported by Iraq more than a year ago. Even Kerry knows who Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Hezbolla and Hamas are and admits the longstanding connections between them and Iraq. Regardless, why do you think terrorists (especially al qaeda) are vehemently fighting in Iraq? Could it be they want to keep a safe haven open?? Or do you feel they are righteously fighting tyranny and injustice. Think about it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Kerry can get a snake like Karl Rove out of the Whitehouse, etc., etc.</font>

And replace him with that blithering idiot and worse snake Tad Devine etc, etc.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Kerry has a clue which is more than can be said about Bush. </font>

Once again a rhetoric filled post by a Kerry lover who has absolutely no clue as to what Kerry's stance is on anything (not sure even Kerry knows that as it changes from week to week) by vomits out stale propoganda simply because his party tells him to. Yes THAT is who we want running this country

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">BTW FWIW, Nader is not the Green Party canidate this year.</font>

Better tell Ralph he doesn't stand a chance of winning his party's nomination in July then:
Nader Picks Green Party's Camejo as Running Mate

Morning Edition audio

June 22, 2004

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader chooses Peter Camejo, a longtime Green Party activist from California, as his running mate. The move is likely to win Nader the backing of the Green Party and help the Nader ticket get on more state ballots.

 

[NBF_Bama_Cavalry]

First of all, I can't say that I'm 100% happy with President Bush. However, I believe that he is doing what he feels is best for America and understands better than Kerry the threat we face from terrorism. I don't like to hear him constantly remind us that Islam is peaceful because every day brings more evidence that it is not (in my opinion).

I've seen Kerry's voting record in the Senate. He would have a hard time convincing me that he has America's best interests at heart. As a male, heterosexual, working person and a veteran of the military, his voting record seems like he considers me the enemy. I can't speak to his stand on the issues that matter to the American people because he doesn't appear to have a position. However, I think that anybody that closely affiliated with Ted Kennedy can't be good.

I'm also afraid that a vote for a 3rd-party candidate is as good as a vote for Kerry. So, although I have issues with President Bush, overall I think he's the best choice of all the candidates.

Just my opinion and I'm not trying to sway anyone.

 

[jthomas666]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TexasTide:
jt666,

What are the logical reasons? All we ever get are posts like Bamaro's, full of things that are just flat out untrue.</font>

Bamaro's claim that Bush spends like a drunken sailor has the ring of truth, as opposed to untruth. He has eschewed "tax and spend" for "spend and spend".

The spiraling deficit, the projected long-term cost of Bush's healthcare package (costs that won't kick in until after he's out of office), his poor handling of the war on terror (The fact that Hussein is scum is irrelevant; bin Laden was and remains a greater threat to the US as well as the rest of the world)...

Now, you may not consider these legitimate issues. I do.

But my point didn't address specific issues, but rather the ability of people to reach their own conclusions. Nan denied that there was any logical way to justify voting for Kerry. That claim is patently wrong (absent proof that Bush is, in fact, the second coming of Christ), and epitomizes the sort of sweeping generalization that has sadly, come to typify many posters here, regardless of their political leanings.

------------------
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he had read made him mad." -- George Bernard Shaw

 

[TexasTide]

jt666,

Of course I consider them legitimate issues.

Conservatives will, for the most part, agree on the spending issues except when it comes to defense. But this whole idea of Liberals being concerned about spending is quite new, beginning only around the year 2001 so it's hard for me to believe that people like Bamaro have real issues with spending and aren't just spouting rhetoric. In fact, balancing the budget and limiting spending has been a policy of Conservatives for many years and Newt Gingrich and the "contract with America" did far more to achieve that than any Liberal. Gun control and the budget were the 2 biggest issues in '94 and got a lot of Republicans elected. So to imply now that Conservatives/Republicans aren't concerned about spending is a bit absurd, but we certainly do not solve that problem by electing a Democrat.

To state that Bush has poorly handled the war on terror is purely a matter of opinion and depends on who you listen to. I personally think he has handled it well and there are few who could have done better that are alive and well today, certainly none that were running for the office of President, and that includes McCain, and currently John Kerry. Even if we all looked at the facts available today, which I think favor Bush, we may not know for sure for many years to come, if he handled the war properly. Many criticized Reagan for his handling of communism but recent history has proven that he handled it quite well.

I don't disagree that there are logical reasons for voting for Kerry, I just haven't seen any here.

 

[NYBamaFan]

jt666,

I agree with your assessment of the Bush spending and cannot believe that he supported the prescription drug plan. I do not agree that Kerry is a better option. At best, he is different. Here are my Kerry questions for Democrats:

How long has Kerry been in the Senate? How many bills has he sponsored? How many of the bills that he has sponsored has he been able to get passed? Right now his job is to sponsor and support legislation as a representative of his state's interests. How effective has he been in that role?

His Senate re-election has simply been a matter of party affiliation and name recognition. I have been able to find nothing that he has done for his state - at least in his capacity as Senator. What makes him a good candidate for president? Sell me - Why should I vote for Kerry?

 

[jthomas666]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by NYBamaFan:
jt666,

I agree with your assessment of the Bush spending and cannot believe that he supported the prescription drug plan. I do not agree that Kerry is a better option. At best, he is different. Here are my Kerry questions for Democrats:
</font>

At this point, there are many who will settle for different.

You raise some valid questions regarding Kerry's legislative record, and I hope we can get some good answers from the Kerry-ites.

My mom has a book, "Tour of Duty" about Kerry's days in Vietnam. I'm going to borrow it when she's finished and see if I can find something to report.

------------------
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he had read made him mad." -- George Bernard Shaw

 

[Dr. Know]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bamaro:

Originally posted by TiderinMiss:
I've seen more hate thrown around for our current president than I have for any previous ones. I have read the rhetoric over the past couple of months, and basically, many of you are literally screaming that Bush must go.

So here's my question:

What's the alternative?

John Kerry?

</font>

Well yes. Kerry is far from perfect but Bush is not far from incompetent. Kerry can rebuild the respect with the rest of the world that Bush has trashed. Kerry can stop spending like a drunken sailor. Kerry can defend the environment. Kerry can get us back to a balanced budget. Kerry can remove the ban on embryonic stem cell research, Kerry can fight terrorism where it exists (NOT in Iraq - at least not until a year ago!), Kerry can get a snake like Karl Rove out of the Whitehouse, etc., etc. Kerry has a clue which is more than can be said about Bush.
BTW FWIW, Nader is not the Green Party canidate this year.

Hell he's had 20 years, don't you think he could have started by now??????????????Why has he waited until now to address anything? You don't find that strange? He's full of answers now, now that he's running for president....hello...what, has he been suddenly enlightened or something. HE'S A CON-MAN!

 

[Bamaro]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by UA DJ:
It appears to me that (in several cases) once a person aligns themselves closely with a political party, they lose all objectivity. They essentially brainwash themselves into believing whatever their party does is correct. Instead of asking "does this have merit" or "is this correct", they ask "what angle can I use to prove this has merit" or "to prove this is correct." It's loyalty, but it usually comes at the price of being a hypocrite.</font>

So true!

 

[Bamalaw92]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bamaro:

Originally posted by UA DJ:
It appears to me that (in several cases) once a person aligns themselves closely with a political party, they lose all objectivity. They essentially brainwash themselves into believing whatever their party does is correct. Instead of asking "does this have merit" or "is this correct", they ask "what angle can I use to prove this has merit" or "to prove this is correct." It's loyalty, but it usually comes at the price of being a hypocrite.</font>

So true!

Does anyone else see the irony in this?

 

[Bowens]

Kerry can rebuild the respect with the rest of the world that Bush has trashed.
First of all, I could care less if "the rest of the world respects us". France and Germany had their dirty hands in Saddam's pocket just like the UN did in the oil for food scandal...who in that group do you want to respect us?


Kerry can stop spending like a drunken sailor.
Hes a politician don't fool yourself, they all spend like a drunken sailor.

Kerry can defend the environment.
What we need is oil drilling in Alaska to get our gas prices down. Kerry wants to implement a .50cent tax...add 50 cents to your gas price now...how good does Kerry sound now.

Kerry can get us back to a balanced budget.
That is the funniest thing I have ever heard...he's a democrat, they don't know what a balanced budget is. No politician does.
Kerry can remove the ban on embryonic stem cell research,
I don't want the ban lifted, if that matters to you.

Kerry can fight terrorism where it exists (NOT in Iraq - at least not until a year ago!),
Kerry WON'T fight terrorism. He won't even approve funds for our soldiers over there to get their equipment. His idea of fighting it is let the UN do it. UN like france and germany is corrupt. WE HAVE TO DO IT.

Kerry can get a snake like Karl Rove out of the Whitehouse, etc., etc. Kerry has a clue which is more than can be said about Bush.
Without Bush, we would be the laughing stock of the world. Bin Laden perceived us as "weak" after 8 years of clinton. We'll be considered cowardly after 1 year of Kerry. At least Bush is standing up to the terrorist. I don't see other democrats doing that.

Our country right now NEEDS a man like President Bush. We all need to understand that politics isn't the cure-all solution to every single issue in the world. Sometimes it takes courage, sometimes it takes a fight, sometimes it takes doing things we don't like. President Bush is the ONLY logical choice.

 

[TiderinMiss]

Well, there have been some interesting responses, some very good, some didn't tell me any more than when I asked.

I'm voting for Bush again. I just don't feel any other party has a better alternative.

 

[Bamaro]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bowens:
Kerry can get us back to a balanced budget.
That is the funniest thing I have ever heard...he's a democrat, they don't know what a balanced budget is. No politician does. </font>

I could easily dispute all of your assertions however I will pick only this one because of time. The only time in the past 30 years that we had a 'balanced' budget (actually a surplus) was during the Clintons era. The worst budget deficits ever in our entire history were 1st under Reagan and now under Bush.
In better days, Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility, Democrats were the big spenders. With the advent of 'Reganomics' Republicans have ceded that positions to where it is obscene the way they show complete distain for any fiscal responsibility. Those are facts, not opinions. I wish the Republican party would get back to what they once stood for rather than trying to 'buy' votes with big spending and tax breaks that we cant afford.
This whole Bush/Kerry bashing just makes me wish more that McCain had won 4 years ago.
I am a Republican that will have to vote for Kerry this time! Bush blew it.




[This message has been edited by Bamaro (edited 06-23-2004).]

 

[Mamacalled]

Bamaro,
Let me school you on some facts.
Reagannomics worked beautifully unless you liked the economy under Carter. Facts that never go reported. Minority incomes grew the fastest in history under Reagan. Women's incomes grew their fastest under Reagan. Revenues more than doubled under Reagan. Deficit grew under Reagan yes, but if you knew anything about our government Who is responsible for spending? Congress. Who was in the majority in Congress under Reagan? The Democrats. The Democratic Congress spent three dollars to every one dollar of revenue generated. Just go and check the IRS tables for the years under Reagan if you want the truth. I am sure that you don't though since it doesn't help your agenda so you can keep on spreading falsehoods.
As far as the current economy, it has rebounded greatly from the decline that started under Clinton and with the aftermath of 9/11. More than a million jobs have been added this year with the forecast to continue the trend at a strong pace. Revenues have grown 100 billion dollars over the last year and the deficit was adjusted down by 100 billion causing Kerry to cry foul. Production is up along with orders. Women's incomes has risen 5% under Bush while the personal incomes for all categories grew 2.2% in just the last month with economist forecasting a continued growth in income.
Now, you can continue to be misled by the people who believe we are too stupid to learn by ourselves and believe the lies that you stated or you can choose to research the facts yourself and be enlightened. Your Choice.

 

[jthomas666]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mamacalled:
Deficit grew under Reagan yes, but if you knew anything about our government Who is responsible for spending? Congress. Who was in the majority in Congress under Reagan? The Democrats. The Democratic Congress spent three dollars to every one dollar of revenue generated. Just go and check the IRS tables for the years under Reagan if you want the truth. </font>

It's called Reaganomics, not Democratonomics. If you're going to give all the credit to Reagan, then it's only fair that you give him all the blame as well.



------------------
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he had read made him mad." -- George Bernard Shaw

 

[Mamacalled]

jt,
I give credit to the Congress as well, they had to support Reagan in order to get the job done. Reagan had to get support from Congress in order to cut taxes which grew the economy and revenues. They did work together well even though they were on different sides of the aisle. It took Congress to support Reagan with his aganda to bring down Soviet Union. I wished that the politicians would remember the lessons of the Reagan times and work together more today.

 

[TexasTide]

I don't believe the budget was balanced under Clinton until the Republicans gained control of Congress.

All of the corporate scandals that have been unearthed the last few years all took place while Clinton was President. How much did their phoney stock prices boost the economy?

 

[REALtide]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry can remove the ban on embryonic stem cell research,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A completely MORONIC thing to do unless you want to lower humanity to the status of a crop.
<~~~~Bamalaw92


BINGO !!!!!!!!!

------------------
War in the Transvaal 1900: “when the soldiers going to the front were passing another body of soldiers whom they recognized, their greetings used to be, ‘Four-nine-four, boys; four-nine-four;’ and the salute would invariably be answered with ‘Six further on, boys; six further on.’ The significance of this was that, in ‘Sacred Songs and Solos,’a book of hymns, number 494 was ‘God be with you until we meet again;’ and six further on than 494, or number 500, was ‘Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine.’”

 

[rizolltizide]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by REALtide:
quote:</font>

No. Not Bingo.

------------------
"I'm in the midst of a trauma...leave a message I'll call you back"---Perry Farrell