Why Did You Vote Republican?
coil
Amateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance. Join Date: 2002-04-12 Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Amateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance. Join Date: 2002-04-12 Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
I'm a Democrat. My country is now a 1-2-3 punch in the hands of the Republican party, and I won't beat around the bush (no pun intended): it scares me.
Republicans (and any other applicable parties), this is your chance to tell me why you voted for George Bush. Why am I asking?
I'd like to hear you say you didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens. I'd love to know that you didn't vote for imperialistic foreign policy. I want to hear you say that you love the environment, that you want the poor to have a chance to improve their lot in society. I want to know that the deficit isn't going to continue spiralling upward in an inverse free-fall. I want to hear you say that people are allowed to think and feel however they want about something, and that the government respects that right. And how the Republican party represents those.
I ask those questions, paraphrased from a friend of mine, because those are what I, as a Democrat, see as the scariest things about the Republican platform. I'm looking for some kind of reassurance that Bush and his friends really *do* have my best interests, and the best interests of the country, in mind.
Republicans (and any other applicable parties), this is your chance to tell me why you voted for George Bush. Why am I asking?
I'd like to hear you say you didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens. I'd love to know that you didn't vote for imperialistic foreign policy. I want to hear you say that you love the environment, that you want the poor to have a chance to improve their lot in society. I want to know that the deficit isn't going to continue spiralling upward in an inverse free-fall. I want to hear you say that people are allowed to think and feel however they want about something, and that the government respects that right. And how the Republican party represents those.
I ask those questions, paraphrased from a friend of mine, because those are what I, as a Democrat, see as the scariest things about the Republican platform. I'm looking for some kind of reassurance that Bush and his friends really *do* have my best interests, and the best interests of the country, in mind.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd like to hear you say you didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens. I don't feel that it is the federal governments position to be involved in our personal relationships for ANY purpose. Homosexual OR heterosexual.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd love to know that you didn't vote for imperialistic foreign policy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't vote for an imperialistic foreign policy. The current deployment of our troops is not going to magically disappear if Kerry were elected. However the manner in which they were withdrawn might. I felt that Kerry as president would be like removing the bandage from a wound too soon before it has time to heal. The US has no intention of remaining in these countries as an imperial occupier. In every instance our external troop deployments have been temporary. When the people of a country ask us to leave, we do.
Our soldiers will be home when the job is finished. Any sooner and every life lost to this point will have been completely wasted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to hear you say that you love the environment, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my experience, the Democratic party has had a terrible track record when it comes to preserving the environment. Let us look past the federal level and on a local and state level. In Pennsylvania the biggest lackies of the housing/development industry have been the democrats. The Republican party (specifically in my home county) has been the biggest opponent of pollution and urban sprawl that you could hope for.
When I see farm after farm being converted into high-density cheap housing and my preservation requests to the democratic party falling on deaf ears while the Republican party actually formed a conservancy effort, it kind of makes me wonder if the Democrats haven't been using the Environment as a strawman.
However, on the federal level, Democrats do have an environmental edge.
Yet one of the biggest opponents of wind turbines was John Kerry? Perhaps it was only a coincidence that they were set to be constructed off the coast of his vacation property. <a href='http://www.capecodonline.com/special/windfarm/kerrywaiting29.htm' target='_blank'>Source (Kerry started to change his mind under pressure in this article)</a>
Kyoto: Until a fair proposal is created (just because many countries supported it doesnt make it fair) I will not support Kyoto. Didn't Clinton have the option of ratifying it and did not?
I could go on, but it basically comes down to this:
I have tried to support the Democrat party. I have attempted to work with them and push some legislation. My father is a union member as well. However there is no room for deviation from their platform. Either you are 100% democrat or they will not help you.
I found my political help from the Republican party and the Democrats have lost a very motivated activist.
Uhh, yeah, I'll speak my reasons, since you asked. I'm not looking for a debate - but this is why:
1. I believe John Kerry to be a man of weak moral fiber.
a. He supports abortion rights.
b. He supports **** marriage.
c. He went against his own church and took communion - shows a complete disregard for religion, and a willingness to use the church to make political statements.
2. I believe the economy is getting better - the recession started under Clinton, and we are coming out of it.
a. I don't believe the government should be handing out anything.
b. I never expect to see my Social Security money
c. I work hard for my money, why should someone who doesn't work expect a tax break?
3. I believe the war in Iraq is going well - not great, but well.
a. Just because something can't be found doesn't mean it was never there.
b. In many areas, people are having more freedoms than they ever did.
c. They are having elections in a few months.
4. I don't think that Kerry respects the military / our nation outside the global theater.
a. Americans dying is valid under the American flag - it doesn't have to be the UN flag.
b. The UN is corrupt - I wouldn't want a president who feeds into that corruption.
c. Just because a decision is popular, doesn't make it right. Sometimes the most "right" things are the hardest / least popular.
Those are most of my reasons - I'm sure I could come up with more if I needed to. Like I said, I'm not after a debate, I don't really care if you see things in a different light - this is how I see them, and I voted that way.
Here is my 2 cents.. The democrats did a craptastic job of truly explaining what John Kerry was for..
Uninformed people know that people for **** marriage are generally democrats.. But didn't know John Kerry was also against **** marriage. (see the above post)
The republicans have a large percentage of the mainstream talk media (CNN, FOX NEWS, Rush, Neil Boortz, Sean Hannity). All are right wing. Until Air America was formed, there was no left wing radio shows nationally. So it was easy to spread half-truths regarding John Kerry's stance on things.. Or to use force to dispel logic.. for example: Moving massive amounts of explosives when the CIA, FBI and many other organizations have satellites on iraq every moment of every day makes no sense. (Same issues with removing all teh WMD before the americans got there) If Colin Powell had pictures of these things, then they should be able to track every step they made.. It's logical..
For example religion, the democrats did a horrific job of explaining that John Kerry is Catholic and is more involved in his church than George Bush is.
So all the people in the midwest looking for good family values didn't realize that on that issue John Kerry was as good a choice as George Bush.
The biggest issue is the democrats did a really bad job of selling John Kerry to the average american, making them understand what he believes and why his vision of tomorrow would be good for them..
The republicans also did an excellent job making people who don't understand think that those opposed to the war in Iraq hate the troops or are unpatriotic.. Which simply isn't the truth and the democrats didn't counter with much of anything..
TBH, the democrats need to take a hard look in the mirror and realize the way they do business is bad and needs a complete overhaul.
but hey, take it easy, im just saying that if youre out to clear the world from evil, actually do so. the best way to kill something big is to decapitate it, not nib a toe or finger off :|
First of all, I am not a Republican though I do sometimes vote for Republicans. I find it interesting that you're not as interested in why someone would vote for a Republican but instead are more interested in why someone from a different political ideology doensn't do what you want them to do.
There is a serious problem going around that involves a large portion of both the American and World population that either can't or won't understand why a majority in a nation would elect not only a President but also a legislature that disagrees with them. That's what frightens me and others. There seems to be an accepted assumption that trickery and lies are not only approved of but elected into office. This is a blindness that is causing an irrational rage.
So, based on that, I will tell you why I will vote for some Republicans.
1. Individual freedom. Freedom to use more of my (yes MY) money as I wish. If I choose to spend it on Twinkies or pay to support my family or give all of it to charity, that's my business not the Federal government's. In contrast, Democrat uses the government as a tool to distribute funds in a way that they believe is appropriate. I can understand that thinking but I completely disagree with it.
2. State's rights. We are a nation of individual States. We were founded as a nation of individual States. Since inception, power (choice) has been continuously stripped or given from State governments to the Federal government. I believe that decisions are better made on a local basis (State, County, City) rather than in Washington DC. Similarly, problems caused within States should not be distributed throughout the nation. For example, as Michiganders, we are responsible for the Great Lakes. Individuals and companies in the surrounding States (Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc) have mistreated these waters over the years. Should I ask someone in Montana or Florida or Vermont to pay for our transgressions?
3. Market freedom. I believe "the market" or the supply and consumption of products and services in our nation has an uncanny ability to keep balance without intervention from governments.
There are others I suppose but I don't have time to get too specific. Now, you might find discrepencies between my thoughts and those proposed by the Bush administration. Note that you didn't ask "why vote for Bush?". I recommend taking a closer look at why there was such a great increase in Republican Senate and Congressional seats. Not only this election year but over the last 8 years.
EDIT: just wanted to add that there is some extra blindness going around that believes there some sort of "Christian Crusade" that swept the nation and showed up to vote. This is a fallacy and the beginning of the Democrat party building a political foundation that isn't willing to face it's own inadequacies. There isn't some "vast right wing conspiracy" that's out to get Democrats. What there is, is a big chunk of people going about there lives in "fly-over country" who, when given the opportunity to voice their opinion, will make send a direct message to any who are listening. I suggest unplugging your ears.
<a href='http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm</a>
Anyone's opinion isn't moot, so long as you have the will and strength (read: AK47) to back it up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->State's rights. We are a nation of individual States. We were founded as a nation of individual States. Since inception, power (choice) has been continuously stripped or given from State governments to the Federal government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to be reading only half the title; you're forgetting the "United" part. One state bans homosexual marriage, while another one allows it. Not exactly "United" if you ask me! Now, power may have shifted from the individual state towards the federal government, but as long as you (or your representative) can vote on WHAT the federal government does, why in the hell complain about anything? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think that Kerry respects the military / our nation outside the global theater.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that Kerry DOES respect the military and the nation in the global theater. He just doesn't like the things they do, sometimes. (Read: War atrocities (Read: Rape of indiginous people, murder of civilians, disrespect for Geneva convention, greavous human error (Read: Canadian soldiers killed by US bomber in FF incident), no plan for stages of the war, etc))
I didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens. I don't feel that it is the federal governments position to be involved in our personal relationships for ANY purpose. Homosexual OR heterosexual <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
x5 = impressed
Yes that is <i>excatly</i> how I feel about it too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd love to know that you didn't vote for imperialistic foreign policy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't vote for an imperialistic foreign policy. The current deployment of our troops is not going to magically disappear if Kerry were elected. However the manner in which they were withdrawn might. I felt that Kerry as president would be like removing the bandage from a wound too soon before it has time to heal. The US has no intention of remaining in these countries as an imperial occupier. In every instance our external troop deployments have been temporary. When the people of a country ask us to leave, we do.
Our soldiers will be home when the job is finished. Any sooner and every life lost to this point will have been completely wasted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to hear you say that you love the environment, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my experience, the Democratic party has had a terrible track record when it comes to preserving the environment. Let us look past the federal level and on a local and state level. In Pennsylvania the biggest lackies of the housing/development industry have been the democrats. The Republican party (specifically in my home county) has been the biggest opponent of pollution and urban sprawl that you could hope for.
When I see farm after farm being converted into high-density cheap housing and my preservation requests to the democratic party falling on deaf ears while the Republican party actually formed a conservancy effort, it kind of makes me wonder if the Democrats haven't been using the Environment as a strawman.
However, on the federal level, Democrats do have an environmental edge.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
x5 says: "I love the environment"
Actually it's only that federal republicans support big oil companies and push legislation to improve production of SUVs that has got them a bad name with environment protection. Outside of that they are pretty much equal like wizard was saying. Then it just depends on your personal experience and the individual locals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd love to know that you didn't vote for imperialistic foreign policy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't vote for an imperialistic foreign policy. The current deployment of our troops is not going to magically disappear if Kerry were elected. However the manner in which they were withdrawn might. I felt that Kerry as president would be like removing the bandage from a wound too soon before it has time to heal. The US has no intention of remaining in these countries as an imperial occupier. In every instance our external troop deployments have been temporary. When the people of a country ask us to leave, we do.
Our soldiers will be home when the job is finished. Any sooner and every life lost to this point will have been completely wasted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, foreign policy really only matters in how you appear to others, and it is a fact that nobody likes an occupying military and we are infact occupying. Also even though the Saddam dictatorship is better with him gone, that never gives one nation the right to do a coup de etat. Yes it is good he is in jail, but look at the mess it caused. Terrorism has <i>increased</i>, not decreased. <i>More</i> people hate the US, not less. This kind of reminds me of an anti-thesis of the Prime Directive. Remember that no matter how well intentioned the result will be inevitably disasterous. We are acting more like an imperialism than ever. And worse we keep on throwing in the "we're on god's side" crap and religious connection making it into a war of religions and culture which is so scarily wrong.
You can't make war on scripting
You can't make war on hacking
You can't make war on hacking
You can't make war on drugs
You can't make war on murder
You can't make war on terrorism
Why? Because it isn't a war if it can't be finished. Terrorism is a crime. An international high crime. And like all crime, if there is the desire to commit, they will be a way. You can't stop crime. What you can do is reduce it to insignifigant levels by policing, but herein lies the whole problem. One nation can't police the world and more than you would like you neighborhood to be policed by a bunch of occupying Chinese forces with guns. That's acting like a bully. Put yourself in the other people's shoes fo a sec; would you really want to have some foreigners occupying your home when at work they are the clients in your restaurnats. They are always suspicious of you and you hate them. It's a very bad situation <b>and why the third amendment was written!</b> You just don't fight a war you can't win, and with the crime of terrorism as the target, you need to find some way to police and without acting like an imperialist nation. Like it or not it requires international cooperation.
Fact: If you are reading this forum from your family's PC, you don't know jack about how a large proportion of the real world lives.
Fact: If you are reading this forum from your family's PC, you don't know jack about how a large proportion of the real world lives. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a serious problem going around that involves a large portion of both the American and World population that either can't or won't understand why a majority in a nation would elect not only a President but also a legislature that disagrees with them. That's what frightens me and others. There seems to be an accepted assumption that trickery and lies are not only approved of but elected into office. This is a blindness that is causing an irrational rage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A wonderfully specific example.
-**** marriage: I, as well as many others believe that institution should be defined as being between a man and woman; I hold it sacred. I see traditional marriage as a stabilizer of society and the best way to raise kids; it should be encouraged and clearly defined. We have tried polygamy and various other forms of domestic partnership; I believe traditional marriage is best out of all the alternatives. I’m open for the states to decide civil unions and allowing 2 people to share accounts, receive benefits etc. It is important to note that the law would not take sexual preference into account. I would not mind for example sisters living together to both receive the same amount rights married couples have.
-Foreign policy: I don’t believe our foreign policy is imperialistic. I wanted a president who would go on the offensive who is strong on defense.
-Environment: I agree with you. At the federal level, I believe many republicans are lacking in a coherent environmental policy. I hope to see improvements in the next 4 years.
-Fiscal policy: I support tax cuts. I believe that fiscal stimulus added with monetary stimulus is the best way to revive the economy. I agree, the deficit is out of control and therefore congress needs to get it under control. I did not see in Kerry’s campaign a coherent policy in controlling the deficit. He wanted to institute a universal healthcare plan, increase spending on education (already up 56% since Clinton) and various other entitlements. He seemed to believe that taxing the rich would be able to pay for all of this. Out of the 2 choices, I saw bush as the only viable candidate to control the deficit without doing it the easy way of raising taxes.
-Free trade: Avid supporter. I saw that Kerry bought into protectionism trying to quell the hollowing out myth.
I respect Senator Kerry. He ran a good campaign. I didn’t buy into some of the hard rights complaints that he would raise taxes by 30 percent, pull out of Iraq immediately etc. What really hurt any chance that I would vote for him is:
-His party is traveling to the far left fringe of your party. When I saw Howard Dean receive a lot of support/ praise from democrats, it turned me off to any prospective candidate representing that party. Another event that turned me off is when I heard that DNC chairmen Terry McAuliffe help organized premiers of Moore’s defamatory documentary saying it was “a good movie”. The Hollywood endorsements, Gorge Soros, moveon.org and other defamatory endorsements do nothing but turn away voters.
-I support a strong defense and I pro-active foreign policy, but disliked his rather "un-diplomatic" attitude. I believe that bush in this second term will abandon all thoes "polemicists" (they let him down the first term) that surounded him in his first term and take a more colin powell approch; basically what Reagan did during his second term. I don’t think Kerry would let our security be dictated by other bodies but when he said “global test”, it scared me a bit. I don’t want to work with a countries which have a foreign policy of throwing cheese at an crocodile hoping it will eat it last (appeasement). Seeing how Spain basically gave in by terrorist by electing a pacifist government does not look like appealing partners. I hope in bush's second term, he will be more diplomatic
-Constant barrage of defamatory anti-bush books, documentaries, media (NY times, LA times, Guardian, etc.) and appearances then finding out that these loons support Kerry didn’t help in any way. This mudslinging by the hard left hurt Kerry way more then it helped him. Sure it fires up your base, but to moderates like I, it is a huge turnoff.
-Seemed that he would say whatever was popular at the time.
Your party needs to distance themselves from these hard leftist. If you don’t change in the next 4 years and maintain your current leadership, you will lose the more senate seats, rep. seats and the white house again. I like strong competitive parties, keeps everyone honest. Change the leadership and direction of your party please.
Fact: If you are reading this forum from your family's PC, you don't know jack about how a large proportion of the real world lives. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a nice fact. Unfortunatly it just isn't true.
I invite you to come to my hometown. Take a look around. Maybe go meet some of the prostitutes that are standing on the corner by the bar-turned-church. I know what it is like to live in an urban failure. There is no industry, no real business, nothing to support the community. The median houshold income is less than half than that of the surrounding communities.
Ever have to ride on SEPTA for 2 hours just to get to your job as a bus-boy? How many times have you walked down the street and been accosted for whatever you had in your pockets?
My family worked damn hard to get me through college and out of that place. Yet I realize that I had a lot going for me for the simple fact that I lived in the United States. Some of my friends grew up in places where they couldn't afford to put a floor in their house. I know what opportunities I had and I know how much better I had it than a lot of people. I also know that no amount of governmental aid will get you out of those situations. Noone is going to help you unless you help yourself.
You see that raging bull bearing down on you ready to gore you? That's life. Grab it by the horns and cut yourself some steak.
Perhaps you should be a little less judgemental when you suggest that some of us know 'jack'.
On topic 1a, Kerry supported abortion rights. In a free country, i believe anyone should be able to do anything they wish when it concerns only themselves, and their significant others, and everyone is in agreement of the choice. Abortion is no different, Kerry didnt push babykilling, but he said it would not be completely banned.
On topic 1b, What impact does two men or two women living together have on your life? Who gives you the right to ban what they want to do consensually??? Again, it's the free country argument.
On topic 1c, That Kerry didnt have enough respect for The Church. Havent we come beyond the separation of church and state yet? Who gives a flying **** what anyone thinks of religion? The only impact religion should have is as a testament to the ethics/morality of the person, and we have seen plenty of evidence that religious affiliation has no bearing on someones ethics.
Topic2, four years to begin to maybe see us as coming out of the recession? What low expectations the administration has bred into you. I am dissapointed. Maybe you are not of age to know what it is like in the current economy. A good friend of mine has two university degrees in engineering and cannot find a job, he hasbeen looking for two years. My brother has a degree from a prestigious engineering school in software design principles, and has taken him two and a half years to find the first job opening in the field. The economy is NOT good, and this has a real impct on our lives. We cant afford cars, we cant afford gas, we cant afford toys, we can only afford rent and food. Nice way to live.
Topic3, The iraq war is going well according to some. its going horribly according to others. This is so incredibly open to debate that it should be considered a non-issue.
Topic4, you dont think kerry respects the military? i dont think bush respects anyone who's not a millionaire. Which has a larger bearing on our lives?
(disclaimer, i voted Kerry, and he won my state, what else can i do? A good friend of mine is now genuinely depressed that there will be a constitutional ammendment expressly forbidding that he ever marry his long-term boyfriend.)
---
I want to see more people tell me why they voted for Bush. Not why they didnt vote for kerry. i dont care why you didnt vote for kerry, i kno he ran a poor campaign, and that is irrelevant. there were other people running. quite a few others. Why do you think Bush is good?
(my away message has been for the past few days: "Four more years of war and unemployment, Yay. i might even get sent overseas to shoot some heretical non-christian ragheads.")
i think that some americans have some really weird reasons to vote for presidency. Like when they say i vote becourse his a great leader!!!. Or when they go on the streets with banners shouting BUSH! KERRY! BUSH! KERRY! i mean WTH? and in danish tv we had this reporter saying someone voting for bush course that he says his gonna crush terrorism and does it.
hope it make sense <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyway, I went Bush because....
I believe in the war in Iraq and bringing democracy to the Middle East. I believe it will succeed.
I believe that the economy is now getting much better, witht he lowest unemployment % ever, even lower than Clinton's. We are in a cycle, and the economy will now go up, I believe.
I believe in my Catholic religion. Kerry is openly pro-abortion, and I am very sensitive on this. Bush passed a law preventing partial-birth abortions, and I praise him for it.
I believe that morals are very important in how a country should be run, and who is running it. President Bush's morals are so close to mine that I can identify with him as a human being instead of just a political figure.
I believe in President Bush's first lady, Laura Bush, that she is a woman of dignity over Teresa Heinz-Kerry. Mrs. Kerry projected an image of a spoiled, undereducated person with her comments and actions, while Laura Bush projected a dignified image of a wife who stands behind her husband with 100% confidence.
I believe in being nice during a season of politics over being cutthroat. Kerry projected an image of attack, attack, attack, every single action Bush was doing had to be attacked. Bush took his fair shots, but in no way did he base his campaign on attacking the candidate.
I believe that medicine malpractice must be controlled. Malpractice lawsuits have gone so out of hand that insureance rates are through the roof. By putting an end to all the fraudulant cases, insurance will be lowered, givign America more money in the long run.
I believe in a President who is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in. Senator Kerry showed too many times that he could not make a decisive point until late in the campaign(this got him the title flip-flopper). President Bush has had the same stand since he was elected, and with such confidence as well. I love the image that he projects over Kerry with his morals and beliefs of safety and tradition.
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that **** people have the same status as a single person and should not get the perks of marriage. Married people have many more problems financially than single people, what with children and family income, that they need these benefits to act as a family, to be as one, and to help them survive with slightly more ease. A **** person who wants marriage perks is doing it for selfish reasons, and must realize from the time that they determine that they are ****, that they will have a single status for the rest of their life because of it. I support Bush and those states who voted to ban same-sex marriage in their state constitutions.
I believe that President Bush will not instate a draft. A draft goes against Republican beliefs, and especially President Bush's own morals and beliefs. He has promised numerous times as persident that there will not be a draft, and I do not see why there will be one. We are a full volunteer army, and it works perfectly. We would not need a draft if only 1,000 troops were lost so far during the entire war, when we have millions of volunteer active and reserve troops. Not to mention we are pulling out soon.
I believe that President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act will help the failing public schools(at least in my state), and that it's the right way to motivate schools and help bring up the education level.
And thus, I stand by Bush and my vote is with him all the way. He will do wonders for us in the next four years, and I look forward to it.
Sadly no, the US is actually regressing to having church and state combined again. That is perhaps the single biggest qualm I have with the republican party and part of why they are such a stong party:
religion + politics = BAD!, <i>but higly effective</i>
It works to combine your political mission with religion. It's very wrong but yet powerful. Just as Machiavellian "rule by fear" is more effective than to be loved. It's not good, but effective.
one nation under god < and even more < bill of rights
<!--QuoteBegin-Bill of Rights+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bill of Rights)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Amendment I</b>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
<b>Amendment II</b>
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
<b>Amendment III</b>
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
<b>Amendment IV</b>
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
<b>Amendment V</b>
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
<b>Amendment VI</b>
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
<b>Amendment VII</b>
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
<b>Amendment VIII</b>
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
<b>Amendment IX</b>
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
<b>Amendment X</b>
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh and I find the third Amendment ironic considering our imperialistic occupying of other nations. To quote from the prime directive, a very correct philosophy carrying with it the highest moral obligation, that despite the best of intentions (like ridding Iraq of a tyranical dictator) the result will be "inevitably disasterous." Furthermore history has proven over and over that an occupying military is resented.
Also, I understand that a president does *not* have a short term impact on the economy. The economic boom of the late 1990's was the result of an unstable phenomenon called the "dot com revolution." It started unravelling while Clinton was in office, and there was nothing that Clinton or Bush could do about it. The government doesn't own the economy; we do. Duh.
However, a president can have a long term impact through what sort of taxation his administration pushes. Bush gave everyone money back. I really dig that and support that. As our economy rises back up, the deficit will fall under control once more. Now, get social spending under control and we're all set. I believe Bush can accomplish some, if not all of those goals.
For Zunni: the American press leans <i>left</i>, not right. Liberal bias is a fact here. And if you think that CNN is right wing, I assume that someone actually has to be a real socialist to be liberal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There is a serious problem going around that involves a large portion of both the American and World population that either can't or won't understand why a majority in a nation would elect not only a President but also a legislature that disagrees with them. That's what frightens me and others. There seems to be an accepted assumption that trickery and lies are not only approved of but elected into office. This is a blindness that is causing an irrational rage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for truth. We voted Bush in because he aligns himself with how we feel about the world far more than Kerry did. We aren't stupid, we aren't rednecks, we aren't retarded, and you don't know better. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Where have you received your information on unemployment %? Never in Bush's whole term has unemployment % been lower than Clinton's last years in his presidency. In fact, according to <a href='http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru' target='_blank'>this site on Unemployment rates over the years</a>, unemployment has risen on a monthly basis only to come down when election times came around, interesting coincidence eh?
Then you don't really understand what partial-birth abortion is all about. Honestly I used to be on the same side as you on this one (for PB-abortions, not regular abortions) even though I'm not at all religious. That was until I read this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Partial-birth abortions are generally only performed on fetuses that *cannot survive* outside of the womb due to developmental complications. Two examples she offered me were a fetus with its brain outside its skull and a fetus with no lungs. Now mothers must carry these doomed fetuses to term.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> --coil
and this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"partial birth" abortions happen in rare cases where the mothers life is at risk or it is clear the fetus will not live through development.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> --dr. d
and I'll throw this in here for good measure:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Don't pretend like you know what it is like to be a women pregnant with an unwanted child none of us here do (hopefully). All pro-lifers take such a big stance on what they deem murder, yet aside from abortion they have no qualms with the death penalty, people dying in Africa, crime in the inner cities, etc., if any of you actually beleived what you preached you'd all be in the Peace Corps fighting in Iraq and South Africa, lobbying to have prisions shut down, and giving all your money to inner city programs to stop violence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> --dr. d again
<a href='http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just got the chance to look at this article and I remember seeing him speak on CSpan this past Summer. He's wrong.
Or, more appropriately, his premise is wrong. You see, throughout the article there is one underlying factor that he never openly states but assumes completely: Mr. Frank believes that these people and others like them need help from the government and the upper class.
He simply cannot understand why they would turn their backs on those willing to dish out the food stamps and block cheese. These poor, meager, unknowing souls want nothing to do with Mr. Frank, or Mr. Bush, or anyone else who lives more than 20 miles from their home. They don't want their help, they don't want their money, and they sure as Hell don't want their pity. They just want to live their lives as they see fit. Get out of their way, leave them alone, and everyone is happy. The Republican party says they'll get out of the way and give people back their money. That's generally good enough.
Mr. Frank also thinks very highly of himself. And vanity isn't something to look up to in "fly-over country".
The pure hatred spewing from the left. Rather than trying to understand why people do not agree with them, they just break down in to calling them stupid. I sat in class(I go to grad school) wed. and listen to other students say how stupid people were in ohio for voting Bush. The left anymore seem to be elitist, anyone that does not share their beliefs are beneath them.
coil could illustrate this better in the condescending wording of his questions? Rather than just asking why we support Bush, he felt the need to attack.
a. He supports abortion rights.
b. He supports **** marriage.
c. He went against his own church and took communion - shows a complete disregard for religion, and a willingness to use the church to make political statements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are not good reasons to vote against a man. Hey I don't care who you vote for, but for the love of god, don't vote against someone because of a 2000 year old book.
And your problems with homosexuals are downright discriminatory, imo. There's no reason why they shouldn't get the same benefits as a married couple. Call it whatever you want (marriage, civil union, I don't care) but they should get the benefits.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd like to hear you say you didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US in generally does not approve of **** marrige. Where do I stand? Marrige is a religious term. Let me say that again. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> It IMPLICITLY defines marrige as the union between a <b>MAN</b> and a <b>WOMAN</b>. All this pure crap about "second rate citizens" really irks me a lot, or being against "equal" rights. It's just not true. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> If <b>the people</b> do not want marrige to be defined as differently, then they do not have to. I repeat; they do not have to.
I find it HILARIOUS that "civil unions" which is pretty much endorsed by enough republicans so it would pass through congress, is rejected by the democrats and **** right advocate say that "civil unions" are descriminatory. Will SOMEONE please tell me how "civil union" is any more discriminatory than "g4y marrige"? The word g4y is used as an insult. Civil union sounds like a nice comprimise that all of society could agree to.
The democrats have carried the "Holier than thou" attitude about g4y marrige in the campgaign, this hurt them a lot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd love to know that you didn't vote for imperialistic foreign policy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The democrats were in power during the cold war which was our time of the most imperialism ever. Now we are mostly invading in the name of defense. Just because you think Iraq did not pose a threat when all branches of our government did, and you can't understand that; not my problem of ignorance.
Pacificts also really hurt the democratic party and drive people to the republicans, most people realize what a stupid attitude pacifism is.
Pacificts are the ultimate tool for dicators to control the world. People who are willing to fight back keep the world under control.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Pope? How many divisions has he got? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- Joe Stalin
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to hear you say that you love the environment<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->that you want the poor to have a chance to improve their lot in society.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sorry but I believe in www.capitalism.org
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to know that the deficit isn't going to continue spiralling upward in an inverse free-fall.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Deficits are not big problems.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And how the Republican party represents those.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the democratic party doesn't.
The pure hatred spewing from the left. Rather than trying to understand why people do not agree with them, they just break down in to calling them stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or I can turn that perfectly arround and as make an equally incorrect statement, it's a two way street buddy:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The pure hatred spewing from the right. Rather than trying to understand why people do not agree with them, they just break down in to calling them stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See?
Oh and by the way, stupid & ignorant are not the same thing anymore than n00b and newbie are. Stupid people are ofthen ignorant as well, but ignorance has nothing to do with one's stupidity. Ignorant can mean it was either deliberately choosing not to be informed or being mis/under-informed. Don't put words In Zunni's mouth that he didn't say. That's spreading a lie.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->coil could illustrate this better in the condescending wording of his questions? Rather than just asking why we support Bush, he felt the need to attack.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coil wasn't attacking. Do you feel that insecure?
The pure hatred spewing from the left. Rather than trying to understand why people do not agree with them, they just break down in to calling them stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or I can turn that perfectly arround and as make an equally incorrect statement, it's a two way street buddy:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The pure hatred spewing from the right. Rather than trying to understand why people do not agree with them, they just break down in to calling them stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See?
Oh and by the way, stupid & ignorant are not the same thing anymore than n00b and newbie are. Stupid people are ofthen ignorant as well, but ignorance has nothing to do with one's stupidity. Ignorant can mean it was either deliberately choosing not to be informed or being mis/under-informed. Don't put words In Zunni's mouth that he didn't say. That's spreading a lie.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->coil could illustrate this better in the condescending wording of his questions? Rather than just asking why we support Bush, he felt the need to attack.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coil wasn't attacking. Do you feel that insecure? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you see but I gave a real life example with mine. No, talk show hosts do not count as they get paid to be that way. Yes both sides attack, but I see it more from the left.
As for coils statement
What he used is a common linquistic ploy, mostly used by lawyers. It is meant to guise an unproven fact as a proven fact. The most popular example of this is asking someone who has no history of domestic violence "when did you stop abusing your wife?" It is meant to get the subject on the defensive, hence an attack. If you want I can go to my Human Information Processing book and look up some case studies for you.
Correct me if im' wrong, but this doesn't seem correct...
A partial-birth abortion is, as far as i know, a full 9-month baby is is killed as being delivered. They poke a hole in the skull, suck out the brains, then pull it out with a collapsed head. So... isn't a partial-birth abortion dependant on the fact that a mother carried the "doomed" fetus to term, thus making a earlier-term abortion more effective?