I am voting for Bush in God's name waht

This thread was opened with Kerry talking points, which have mostly been responded to here. It really is not possible to debate with the true anit-Bush crowd because you have already dismissed facts that diminish your argument. Those of us on the pro-Bush side acknowledge and accept some of the Bush short-comings.

A Bush supporter will often admit to a shortcoming on the part of the President. Just because we support him does not mean we believe he is infallible.

To answer the question: I am voting for Bush because any other vote in this election would be voting against the future of my child and her future children. I want those who inherit this country from us to live in a safer world and with greater opportunity to be prosperous. I believe a vote for Kerry would be counter to that.

Get back in your cage.

It just confuses me. Bush is basically the worst president America has ever had, all that he has done has made this country go downhill, and people still vote for him. It's mind boggling.

For all those who say Kerry is a 'flip-flopper' he proved that false in the debates, and for those who say all Kerry says is 'I have a plan I can do better' then doesn't explain...he did explain all his plans ( http://www.debates.org so you can check for yourselves), and this country is so far in the crapper from the Bush administration I really think Kerry and his Plunger of Justice ( :p) can fix it! Even if Kerry can't do ALL of the things he claims he wants to do, I still have 100% faith that whatever he does will be better then this administration. From 2000 - 2004 America hit rock bottom, we can only go up from here as long as we put the right people in office, and kick the wrong people out.

• Bush is the first president in 70 something years to lose jobs.

Yeah, it’s called a recession. It’s common knowledge that economists predicted the recession during Bill Clinton’s administration. 9/11 Didn’t help either. The rescission happened way before any thing a president could do to take its effect the economy. A president’s decisions take about 4 years to take effect. This is why our economy is starting to pick up. It’s been 4 years.

• We are now in a 3 trillion dollar deficit (I think it’s that much…either way it’s in the trillions)

Yup, and Bush’s spending on stupid programs didn’t help it at all. I’m going to go Bush, because Kerry would spend 10x that amount on stupid programs. I don’t like either of them here, but Kerry would spend way more on stupid things like socialized health care.

• Bush said in a speech and I quote “I truly am not that concerned about him (Osama Bin Laden). I know he’s on the run. …I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country.”

He hasn’t hurt us, has he? Besides what are we going to do about it? We couldn’t have found him more easily if we hadn’t gone into Iraq.

• Bush took his eye off of Osama Bin Laden and suddenly attacks Iraq.

See above.

• Osama Bin Laden (Al Qaeda) attacked America…Iraq did not.
Yeah, but he is a known enemy who wants to hurt us, and he wouldn’t hesitate to use WMDs. He would not let the inspectors inspect. Definitely not a cool risk to take. Besides he funded terrorists and their training camps. Who cares if they’re not Al Quida? A terrorist is a terrorist.

• There are no WMD’s in Iraq, there is NO justification for war.

There is no way to know this. He had two weeks, a huge dessert, that we have only just begun to search, and friendly countries that would be glad to take them if they do exist. We do know that he had labs he was trying to develop them. He wouldn’t let inspectors do their job. (for 8 years) He was stalling. He was a mass murder/torturer. 70% of Iraqis are very happy we freed them. The other 30% are cronies of Sadam, or Islamic fundamentalists to one degree or another. The time to stop Saddam is before, not after he flattens New York.

• Bush rushed us into war without a plan (or a piss poor plan), without enough troops, knowledge, justification, and allies. (Even Colin Powell is disgusted!)

Can you think of a better one? Rebuilding countries takes time. It doesn’t happen in 6 months. Re-building Nations after WW2 took years, and that was with-out Islamic extremists blowing them selves up every couple of days. As for the UN, they wouldn’t help us anyway.

• Saddam was not a threat, and even if he was, why not attack any of the other countries that have tyrants or WMDs in them? We should have let the UN inspectors finish their jobs.

That’s not true, he was a threat. He was a known enemy trying to dev. WMDs. As for the other countries, we just can’t. We don’t have the man power. We took down the most imminent threat. I would have like to see us go into North Korea, but we can’t right now. I don’t know why you guys keep whining about this. You didn’t whine when Clinton bombed Saddam did you? We went in there because Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors finish. They had mobile labs.

• ‘The Patriot Act’ is more of an invasion of privacy then something used to protect us. Bottom line, it’s crap. It could have been good if it was incorporated right.

Maybe. I don’t care. Do you have anything to hide?

• “No Child Left Behind Act”…ask most teachers and schools, they will tell you it’s also crap (I asked all of my teachers what they thought of it…They say “It’s garbage”). It’s making things worse not better. It’s actually leaving children behind. It hasn’t done anything it claims.

I agree. It was just a stupid waste of money to buy voters. But, it’s better than socialized health care, and a bunch of other crap that Kerry wants.

• The discount cards for elderly healthcare don’t do much at all. Polls in my local newspaper and various other places, show that the elderly don’t think they do much if anything at all.

Better than nothing.

• Medicine is being blocked from Canada. That could help us, but Bush won’t allow it.

That’s because Canada has socialized health care. Us buying medicine up there is stealing from the Canadians.

• Medicine prices have skyrocketed.
And this is… Bush’s fault… How?

• The rich are getting more money for themselves, while the poor and middle classes suffer. In other words, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

The middle and poor got tax cuts too. What are you talking about? It’s really not fair to have 60% of your income take away even if you are rich. This thing is based on jealousy anyway. The rich don’t make up a very big portion of the income taxes because they are a very small group. The rich are paying 60% while we are paying maybe 30%.

In conclusion I’d say Bush is ok, but not great. He had so many opportunities to cut spending but spent more. He did a reasonable job in leading us. Kerry will spend even more than Bush is if he gets elected, and besides, Kerry is for abortion and a bunch of other things I think are very wrong.

This is why your country sucks.

Ever hear of the depression? I'd say the country is in much better condition then at that time.

Andrew Jackson was a worse president than Bush. Grant was a worse president than Bush.

Accedently hit quote instead of EDIT. NT.

That’s a matter of . I could name off many presidents that I think are worse than Bush.



An we have a winner! I'd still vote for Bush because he's way better than Kerry.

EDIT: Mods: sorry about the double post. I forgot I could just edit this one in.

Okay, he's in 3rd place...w00pdie d00.

Listen to me! Iraq did not have WMD's. Saddam kicked the inspectors out because we kept sending them back in. And when they didn't find anything for about the 4th time in a row, he got tired of it. Iraq was not a threat. We have not actually found a link between Saddam and the terrorists either.

You continue to destroy your credibility. The worst President? That's so absurd, I'm going to leave that argument right there. "All that he has done has made this country go downhill." More utter, illogical stupidity. And you claim that your arguments are based on facts.

"For all those who say Kerry is a 'flip-flopper' he proved that false in the debates..." In my opinion, he proved it true in the debates. For one example, he has the gall to accuse Bush of not giving our troops the supplies and equipment they need (when that's really the military's job to decide what equipment they get), after he voted against an $87 billion bill for military equipment. Then he says that he voted for it before he voted against it, or vice versa--it's so stupid I can't even remember which way he said it was. And he is an incredible hypocrite, as I said before, using the situation in Iraq to claim that he would have done better, when he supported Bush at the time the war was beginning. I can't believe that so many people are fooled by him.

"From 2000 - 2004 America hit rock bottom..." More absurdity. More FUD. You don't even know what rock-bottom is.

You're not helping your cause any, but I'll say this much for you: you don't give in easily.

what about the people that saddam told to bury the crap in the their own backyard?

And has anything ever been found? No.

The title of the thread is

"Why in Gods name are you voting for Bush?"

So far I haven't really read any reasons why people are voting for Bush, other than
- He's better than Kerry
- I think he'll do a better job than Kerry
- Because Kerry is a moron
- Probably something else I forgot.

Instead of saying he's better than Kerry (or words to that effect), I would like to hear some fact based reasons why you are voting for Bush. Policies etc. Now that I think about it - the abortion issue came up, but other things as well. If I've missed something that's already been said, I apologize.

(excuse me for trying to stray back on topic)

You flip those around and that's what they typical Kerry supporter is going to say as well.

You know, there is the possibility that there was something in the bill that he didn't agree with, you know. In my US History class, I believe there was the Great Compromise of 1862 (or somewhere are there, not sure of the year) that was proposed to solve the problem with slave states vs. free states. Did it clear with the Senators? No. Why? Because it had several parts that they didn't agree with or want.

Point: There might be a reason for Kerry voting against those bills to supply our troops other than he's a "flip-flopper".

It's good to know I can always come to Massassi and get called an idiot. Really lifts me up.

Yes, because in the US they like to pass bills like:
"Making killing puppies against the law and give senators a 40% salary increase"

or

"Have an army and build a new soccer field in the white house"

So when you vote for one you get a bunch of other crap.

My thoughts on the issue: My vote is going towards Bush.

SAJN - your entire list sounds like you took it from Kerry's mouth. How about some original arguments of stuff you've witnessed while Bush was in office then stuff that keeps being repeated by Kerry's camp.


Some reasons I'm voting for Bush (and these are all personal reasons - as in stuff I've witnessed myself):

- Kerry made his Vietnam record an issue of the whole election. Kept hearing over and over about his Vietnam service. You do realize he has campaigned more talking about Vietnam then his actual service, right?

Now there is that whole thing coming out with the video that goes against Kerry from POW who talk about Vietnam. Now the Kerry camp is like "NO! Conspiracy! Just trying to harm Kerry!!!" Babies.

-The whole issue from Democrats saying Bush was going to start the draft. Stupidest comment ever. Research who actually proposed that bill to the congress, and you'll learn that even the guy that proposed it (A Democrat) voted against it. I'm getting sick of the Democrats saying stuff trying to scare the ignorant college community. Granted!!!!!!!! Before you bash me saying Bush has said stuff too, I realize that yes he has too. But I work at a college bookstore. There was a huge rush of people registering to vote and a huge controversy on this topic at our campus. People were scared that Bush was going to start a draft.

-Kerry's camp cheap shot about Cheney's daughter being a lesbian.

-Kerry complained in the debate about how much Iraq war was costing. He then says when he is President he will get them the stuff they need. And how does he propose this without spending more money in Iraq? Doesn't even make sense.

-I hate the whole argument that Bush took his eye off Osama. People really think that the US can't do two things at once?

-I've talked to actual people who have served in Afghanistan/Iraq (Even one tonight) - and EVERY one of them has said we need to be over there and that the majority of people are glad we're there. The marine tonight talked about how the small groups that cause the disruptions ruin the entire image of what's going on down there. The marine tonight talked about how if you look at how long it took for the US to get a stable government, that people are expecting it to be faster than what it can be for other countries as well. Quit listening to the media people in that "The war is getting worse and worse every day! It's horrible over there!"

From the soldiers I've talked too, that is not the case. There are bad area's, but that is not the entire situation.

- My biggest gripe with Democrats - Taxes. I hate their tax policy of taxing the rich. People say Republicans are the rich party.

Look at the figures. I hate to break it to you - but the more taxes you pay - the larger your tax cut. *gasp of air* Some people just can't grasp this concept. Look at how much of the total income tax % the top 10-20% pay. Then you guys complain when their tax cuts are bigger? I want a flat tax. Equal % regardless of pay. You make $100, 10% tax rate - you pay $10. You make 1,000, 10% tax rate - you pay $100. That sure as hell ain't going to happen with the democrats and they're whole "Let's tax the rich"

My list could go on, but it's like talking to a wall. Bush supporters believe Bush, Kerry supporters believe Kerry. Nothing I say will change that.

But sure as hell don't imply that I'm a dumbass for voting Bush.

Because Kerry people - even if Kerry wins? There's still ~50% of the voting people that don't want Kerry there. That's not this entire country wanting radical change.

SAJN - are you even old enough to vote?

Prove it. They had mobile labs that they'd travel around in. There no way to prove, or disprove the he had WMDs.
We know he was working on them.

Yes! You speak wisdom. And facts. Well said!

EDIT: Darn I double posted again! I wish we could delete posts!

Innocent until proven guilty. Don't even start with that.

Obi, the Bush administration has come out and publicly said that there probably weren't WMDs in Iraq now.

Fixed.

The whole importing medicine from Canada is stupid. Canada's medicine is funded by Canadian citizen tax dollars. If we import medicine from them, we are basically stealing from Canada. We don't want to damage the good relationship we have with Canada.

Not by Saddam's rule, it was a dictatorship. So I'm going to take the "innocents" side, be a dictator. And I agree that we KNOW he wanted WMDS or to destroy others. Or he just invaded Kuwait for fun, he only tortured men, woman, AND children because he was innocent. You can't argue or I'll shoot you, that's how innocent Saddam played it so you keep to your story that he's innocent and don't dispute it. Remember, you could have a gun to your head if you disagree. (For those who don't get it, I'm not really threatening him, ok, so don't ban me for death threats, rofl).

We wouldn't be stealing. If anything, we would help alleviate the burden on Canadians. Plus, it's opening up a huge customer base to the Canadian companies.

I don't think you're quite clear on how people get drugs, prescription or over the counter, in Canada. Provincial/national medicare pays for very few drugs, so most of them end up being purchased just like in the US. So it's not stealing unless the American importers are actually taking the medicine without paying for it.

Thats bullcrap. In the Vp debate, Edwards mentioned Cheneys daughter, and Cheney thanked Edwards, now Kerry mentions her, and not even in a disrespectful way, and Bush uses it against him. Bush is playing dirty.

I was addressing a WMD comment. You kind of went off on a different tangent.

I'm voting for Bush cause I'm all for the war against terror and those that harbor terrorists. osama bin laden is probably dead anyway. We didn't see anybody complaining when saddam's statues were being torn down, now did we.

i agree with obi and blujay.

Reposted from the last such thread, since I really don't feel like retyping this in response to the same tired, worn out talking points. I am voting for Bush because:

9-11 made it painfully obvious that Arab and Muslim states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, neither of which have transparent, mobile economies or open, democratic political systems, are susceptible to radical, violent Islamism because young men and women have nothing to look forward to in life. When young Ahmed is leaning against the wall because he cannot get a job and has no means by which to change his situation, al Qaeda comes along, quotes some violent passages from the Qur'an as well as anti-American and anti-Israeli vitriol.

The trick to defeating terrorism is not, as so many intellectuals (and the Kerry campaign) claim, to make young Ahmed like us or respect us. It's to give him the potential to enjoy the same sort of life you and I do. It's to give him the opportunity to go to school, earn a dignified living, buy a house and raise a family. He may still be angry at the US for this or that, but who cares? He lives a good life, and has a lot to lose, so he just chuckles when he hears that al Qaeda recruiter exhort him to martyr himself in the great Jihad against Jews and Crusaders.

How to do this, you ask? Well, since we don't really have the time to promote gradual reform and progress in the Arab and Muslim worlds (this ain't the Cold War, and there is no deterrent - they're shooting), we have to give the region a little kickstart.

That kickstart is Iraq, and to a lesser degree, Afghanistan. You see, there are already plenty of Arab and Muslim activists who are demanding economic and political reform - in Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere. This is good, and it proves to people with half a brain that democracy is not something the West is trying to impose upon them, but rather something they are willing to risk their lives to demand. But, despite their best efforts, things just aren't moving quickly enough! al Qaeda still finds plenty of recruits to hijack planes and drive car bombs. So, we had to create an example for the entire world, not just the Arabs and Muslims, to show them that Arab culture and Islam are actually compatible with pluralistic, free republics and capitalism.

We can't go after Morocco, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, because they're our allies. We can't very well fight a country we're currently training and arming (it's bad form)! If only there were a hostile, repressive state in the area we could find! Wait, what's this? You say there's a diverse Muslim country of 28 million north of Saudi Arabia ruled by a bloodthirsty tyrant? And he’s hostile to the US? Yeah. Iraq was the logical choice.

So the idea is that in the absence of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party apparatus, the Iraqi people will choose to build in its place a free society. One where young guys who would otherwise lean idly against walls or take up arms against America instead go to work and vote. He can hate us all he wants, though I doubt he will, but it won't matter either way. The French, Germans and many others around the world don't like our foreign policy a damn bit, and yet because they both are societies in which people have political and economic opportunity, they are not large recruiting centers for those who wish us ill. A rich, prosperous and politically open Arab world would be no different, despite what people say about its religion and culture. Democracies do not fight one another.

Why? Because 600 years ago, Western Europe was equally mired in fundamentalist religion and poverty. But when people started making money, they found ways to ignore passages in the Bible that condemn making money off loans and other such restrictions. They said to the Church, "look, I have some money and I want to make more. You won't let me, so **** off". And they did. When the same thing happens in the Arab world, people will be inclined to listen less to religious clerics and more to investment bankers.

Those people who say we don't really understand Arab culture are guilty of ignorance themselves. Iraq will work as an example because there is such a thing as Arab identity that goes beyond religion and nationality. It's why Moroccans and Yemenis sympathize with Palestine, and why the Arab migrant workers who came home rich from Saudi Arabia in the 70's and 80's also came home believing in the radical Saudi sect of Islam known as Wahhabism. But this connection works both ways. Arabs will know when they see Iraq functioning like a modern state that they too can enjoy the simple freedoms of earning decent wages and voting for their guy in the election. They will not be told otherwise. That is the answer to terrorism, and why it was necessary to invade Iraq.

-----------

Saudi Arabia (and other rich gulf states) are in a very different situation, and I apologize for forgetting to mention it. The problem with the rich segment of Saudi society is that many young men, having been raised in an environment of extreme religious fundamentalism, attend university and major in such practical and useful subjects as 'Islamic Jurisprudence'. It is difficult to get a decent job anywhere, in any country with such an esoteric degree. This means you have a bunch of young, fundamentalist Muslims sitting around doing nothing, because they can't get jobs with their inadequate educations. This is in itself isn't really a problem, because they have massive amounts of oil money. They're not starving. However, a bunch of bored radicals sitting on their *** doing nothing makes for a great recruiting pool for the likes of Bin Laden, who himself came to fight in Afghanistan against the Russians under similar circumstances.

Eventually the Saudis started to catch on. Young men started majoring in things that in other countries would get them jobs - engineering, computer science, business, etc.. You'd think the problem would be solved, right? Wrong. Because the Saudis are so filthy ****ing rich, they’ve long imported migrant workers from across the world to perform such menial tasks as working for a living - everywhere from Morocco to the Philippines. Over a fifth of the country’s 25 million are migrants. These people are qualified and they work for cheap. This means Most Exalted Grand Crown Sheikh Prince Abdesalaam Bin-what the **** ever's son can't compete when he goes to look for a job! The problem remains, and al Qaeda continues to recruit. The rest of Saudi Arabia isn’t connected to the royal family and so is piss poor like much of the rest of the Arab world. That’s why economic reform is essential.

Democratic reform is important for the same reasons as in the rest of the Arab and Muslim worlds, but also because too many Saudis see the al Qaeda campaign against the Saudi royal family as being between only between al Qaeda and the government. People really have no say in government whatsoever in Saudi Arabia, and although this will change soon when the first municipal elections are held (guess who prodded them), they really feel they have no stake in fighting terrorism.

[ps: I don't have much to say about domestic issues. In this election, for me, terrorism takes precedence.]

[pps: SAJN_Master, since I'm very obviously brain damaged, I eagerly await your response! You shouldn't have too much trouble.]

I don't think anyone's voting for Bush in God's name.

Kerry>Bush (period)

"Why?"
Kerry has a much higher education than Bush, everyone knows this (just watch any public speech by Bush and you can tell off the bat that he has the education of a drunken chimp).

"So he's missing a few volumes of encyclopedia britannica in his head, he's still a good man and makes good decisions and tells the public the truth."
*AANNNGGGHHH* Wrong. During the majority of his press meetings, Bush has avoided answering several important questions by re-stating things that he had said previously in the meeting that are completly irrelevant to the question.

Now, I'm not saying that Kerry is a saint, and that he hasn't made any mistakes. However, I would rather have my future in the hands of Senator Kerry than President (hopefully former President) Bush any day of the year. For those of you who support Bush, you just give me a headache trying to think of why you would support this toddler like person at the controls of a huge, complex machine that is the U.S..

VOTE KERRY-EDWARDS 2004! MAKE A BETTER TOMORROW!

I fail to see how you address someone's knowledge based on how they speak.

I know plenty of people that mess up speaking because they think of stuff to fast and don't get it all out of their mouth.

Does that mean they're morons? No.

Bush isn't the best speaker. If that's really what you're voting on, then really I wish people like you weren't voting.

Using your knowledge Hawkings would be a complete 100% retard.

Okay, I can tell this is going to be a heated thread, so I'll reply as I go.


OOoooh... that was a bad way to start the thread. Even I would have used more tact.


He actually might have won, we just never got to find out because the Supreme Court put him in before we could.
I wouldn't draw and quarter him, either. There's much worse people in the Bush Administration.


What? Where did you get those figures from?


Bush promised that a certain number of jobs would be created. So obviously he has some kind of control.


It was actually 9/11 that made the recession so bad, but otherwise recessions are natural. However, Bush hasn't done a good job of bringing the economy back up.


Here's the entire press conference:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html


He stopped focusing on Afghanistan, and took out the special forces there.


You're the one being dishonest. Kerry didn't support the war, he supported Bush using force if it turned out to be necessary. At the time it had nothing to do with the war.
If dishonesty concerned you so much you wouldn't be voting for Bush.

I have to take issue with this. Bush has been extremely liberal when it has come to spending the past four years. In fact, (and this came up in the debates), why hasn't he shot down a single spending bill in the past four years? Bush took a large surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit in history. Unlike the rest of the economy, the surplus was not on its way down before Clinton left office.

What hits a sore spot with me is that Bush broke his promise. He said he would not touch the 2.5 trillion dollars that Clinton set aside for social security. In fact, he broke this promise in 2001. He gave a speech in Chicago in 2000 when he was trying to get elected where he said he would not touch the 2.5 trillion (coming from the projected 5.2 trillion ten-year surplus, at least, with Clinton's economic policies, which intentionally reversed the supply-side economics of Reagan and Bush I [who had large deficits themselves]).

I don't think I can trust someone who so thoughtlessly breaks a solemn promise. I loved the part in the debates where Kerry looked straight into the camera and made a promise. Now that's a promise I expect to be kept. But you see, Bush had his chance to show responsibility, and his credibility is gone as far as I'm concerned.