Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 3

*\\o/* GIMME A B!

So are you saying that the primary job of a President is to win elections and pass initiatives? I say it is to lead his country into Peace and prosperity, and by doing so, set an example for the rest of the world. At this Bush has clearly failed.

I'd like to follow up by saying that while you guys love to pile on me for my support for Bush, there are REASONS why I support him. I don't blindly support anyone. I happen to agree with where he stands on most issues, including Iraq and the WOT. I am not pleased with federal spending levels he has allowed, and I'd like to see a tougher immigration stance as well. The man knows how to make a decision, which is at least as important in a President as raw intellect.

Now let me ask: Why do you support Kerry over Bush? What are your criticisms of Kerry? Voting for someone simply because you think he can beat the man you disagree with is ludicrous. What will he do differently? What policies will he implement? HOW exactly will he win the WOT? He hasn't said.

WWW.JOHNKERRY.COM.
Disagree with his stances- fine- no one's arguing that. But the idea that Kerry hasn't said anything that he will do differently or what kinds of policies he will implement is just totally off-base and willfully ignorant of his campaign. Please inform yourself at a basic level here. We're begging you.

Peace does not equal the mere absence of conflict. At least not in the long term. As for prosperity, the economy was tanking when Bush took office. Now it's in recovery. There is no disputing that.

Some excerpts:

Jobs:


Oh, OK.


HAHAHAHAHA

Here's my favorite quote:

"The most basic responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense."

riiiight.


Kerry is running an anti-Bush campaign. That's all. It's only going to get him so far.

You can't. This is a fundamental delusion these days.

Yeah, Well, you win some you lose some.

how many, which ones...those are what makes these conversations so fun

My biggest gripe with bush is his stance towards the environment, and that alone is enough to nullify whatever boons he may have. It's not even about who either, any president that shows such a disregard for the earth should not be in office.\

The only way to reduce terrorism is through diplomacy. Bush doesn't support a policy of diplomacy. I would rather see our President do nothing than do what Bush has done, which is to instigate further terrorism through adversity.

I don't care what Kerry does to fight the WOT. It could NOT be any worse than what Bush has done. So am I supporting a "anyone but Bush" campaign? You betcha.

Likewise for the economy, taxes, education, health. No one could possibly do worse than Bush has done.

I am a Bush hater! Bash me? Fine. I know where I stand and I recognize the true measure of the "success" (or failure, as it stands) of the policies of the Bush administration.

"There's something rotten in the state of Denmark". And we know exactly who it is.

Yeah...War on terror...terror is an abstract concept, there is no base, there is no singular population, there is no physical aspect to terror. Killing some won't stop terror, it won't extinguish it...if anything, it'll rally more people to avenge their friends or what have you.

war on terror indeed, just a buzz term to rally people to the cause.

One of my biggest problems with this state of war we are in is calling it a war. It was a war when we went in to replace teh government of Afghanistan. It was a war when we invaded Iraq. However, I don't consider a continued effort to thwart terrorism and capture terrorists a war, I consider it something between police action and national defense. The terrorists are not a centralized authority that can be clearly defined, engaged and hopefully defeated. Its a lot more messy than that. Bottom line is I don't consider us "at war." We are engaged in a number of post-war clean-up operations and we have greater national security concerns that we use to have.

My point is that I hate how our comander-in-chimp has declared himself a war-time president that requires us to all automatically stand behind him in patriotic blindness and vote him in for another four years.

although i didn't exactly like the man, i'm sure gore wasn't grilled like that because he would have known the answers.

oh well, i was hoping AO would have started to actually turn over a new leaf. maybe instead it just slowed its descent into the abyss.

I, more often than not, find myself in situations where I end up leading rather than following. I am no dummy by any measure, but I would never claim to be an intellectual giant (like some here), Do I do and say dumb things. You bet. More than I would like to admit. Despite that, my real strength is my decisiveness. Because of this strength, others often put me in responsible positions.

The reason, I mention this is that I see Bush as a fellow decision maker. He seems to me to be willing to make the tough decisions and live with the consequences. He looks like a guy with extreme intestinal fortitude. He is obviously not making decisions to guarantee reelection, or to avoid conflict. I admire strong willed people like that. Because that is exactly what I strive to be as a person.

As far as Bush and smarts go, history is littered with people that were considered dumb or silly or not intellectuals that made huge positive impacts on humanity. So I would have to agree with previous posters that when you say bush is dumb or stupid you tend to come off a bit elitist or dismissive. i feel this only weakens your argument.

Ahh... the "fuzzy math" Bush Sr. was talking about...

Sounds like you like what he SAYS ("where he stands") a whole lot more than what he actually DOES.

Unfortunately it's the American public which "lives with the consequences" much more than Bush and his most powerful supporters in the six-figure income brackets.

I agree, but substitute "American public" for the planet and add corporations to the mix.

Someone should start a Church of Bush if he hasn't already.

With respect, history is also littered with millions of dead people, killed by stpuid, uninformed descisions.

In the 21st. C. you just can't be stupid and head up a big corporation let alone a superpower. To be clear, Bush's lack of the facts would be like someone asking the prospective head of Microsoft:

"Who is the CEO of Apple?"
- "I don't know."
"Who is the lead developer of Linux?"
- "I don't know."
"Can you name Sun's proprietary OS?"
- "No, can you name the CFO of SCO?"
"To that I'd have to answer, 'I'm not aiming to be head of Microsoft.'"

That's exactly what I was going to say.

Hell, we already know with Iraq that Bush has MAJOR errors in his judgement.

Um, that is true with every president and legislator and mayor and just about any politician.

You guys act as if all of a sudden, what a president does effects the population, good or bad. If Kerry gets elected he will have the same effects on the American public. Good and Bad.

I am glad you guys were not around during WWII. The American Public sacrificed a whole lot, for little in return, except the knowledge that they were making the future better for future generations.

Sometimes the "in the long run" view is what you need when solving problems. Of course in this time of me first and screw everyone else that may not be possible. Wether you agree with the way it was done or not, you cannot say that the middle east does not have a whole new future.

The big picture.

Kerry will likely rule very similar to Bush, despite all of the hype right now, if he is elected.

Bizzaro world indeed.

You know, there is not reason to be conservative, republican, or libertarian on this board at all. Just for sharing an opinion, here come the flames. Whoosh! Can we just consolidate to one Bush-Republican trashing thread and save everyone a lot of time? Everyone is entitled to have different opinions than mine- whatever... but civil debate in AO is almost dead. I just resent how fast it turns personal and sane discussion of the issues turns into rabid, drooling BS.

this is much nicer than it was two months ago...

Just for giggles... HERE is the Bush04 page when you can search for his donors. There are over 400,000 individual contributors at this point... not just 32 cigar-smoking small-suit-wearing corporate bigwigs as is usually alleged.

Is Bush a better friend to business than Kerry? I'm in business, and I think he is. Hearing the "giant sucking sound" of jobs moving overseas is not good, nor is it fully GWB's fault. NAFTA trade poilcies were pre-Bush, supported by Clinton. We hear about "Bush's Job Loss" - but those policies that are screwing the American worker began under Clinton, maybe even GHW Bush. Asian relocation needs to be addressed with tariffs. And the FTAA can just suck it.

Can anyone find a disclosure like this for Kerry ?

What if I told you I agree more with the majority of ideas associated with the pubublican party than those of the democratic party?

You probably wouldn't believe me, because republicans are currently too lost to even look at their own party objectively and realize what's going on.

Now, now. Temper, temper!

Uh no. That would be prolonging the recession. Lieing to start a war. Cutting taxes to shut the public up and feed his rich friends. The net result is stellar deficit numbers. There's more if you want it?

By SDW,


" Bush has never changed his mind? You've never been sure of your "big" decisions? "


How about revising his employment forcast?

I doubt it. In 50 years I haven't seen anyone else that blatantly insensitive to the welfare of the american people as a whole.

We study history to gain knowledge and perspective. Whether it tells anything about what happens in the future is indeterminant for most things. Heck, we even study history in an effort to not repeat certain events!

If it is such a predictor of politics, why did Bush even try to buck the "perceived" trends? Because the past does not indicate the future. It's not like these trends aren't a soft and mushy set of statistics with lots of exceptions in the first place.

Maybe. But hopefully Kerry won't have the extreme ideological fools Bush has, in his administration. The likes of Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al who were even consired too extreme by Bush sr's administration. In fact I read somewhere they were referred to as the "crazies" in the Republican circles. \

1. DIPLOMACY? You absolutely MUST be joking. One cannot negotiate with those who wish one's destruction. Terrorists and terror sponsoring states respect one thing, and that's raw power. The US is not at fault for the plight of the Middle East, from its corrupt and brutal dictatorships to its total ethnic and religous instability. We must hunt and kills terrorists and punish the states that sponsor them. What other way is there?

2. Economy: What did Bush do? Unemployment is low, the markets are up, GDP growth is strong and we're out of recession (which by the way was much milder than the last one). Job growth needs to improve...but the economy is quite sound. A disaster? No.

3. Education: The federal budget is up 40%. NCLBA, for all it's flaws, demands accountability for schools on everything from scores to attendance. Please explain what you see to be the problem. It sure as hell isn't money. We spend more on education per student than any other country in the world.

4. Healthcare: That's because an ultra-leftist like yourself believes we need nationalized heathcare for all Americans. It's not a right in this country. Period. Despite that, Bush signed a massive federal entitlement program for Medicare, providing prescription drug coverage. Call for tort reform and more government regualtion of insurance companies and maybe you'll have my attention.

5. Taxes: I got a tax decrease. Everyone did. Let me say that again..EVERYONE. Play all the class warfare games you want, but the rich pay the cast majority of taxes and when taxes are cut, they should get the most real-dollar benefit.

No one could do worse? I beg to differ.

Examples. Please, I'm waiting.

How unbelieveably narrow minded. You only believe that because you oppose the action. What errors to you refer to?

giant:


Well, number one I think that's untrue. But if it is, I'd ask you to realize that I for one have some serious criticisms of the party. For one, it's supporting too much spending...particularly with social spending. It's also supporting more big government by the day. That being said, the party only seems to be gaining popularity. In any case, the Democratic party is far, far worse shape....and has no particular agenda right now other than unseating Bush.

Perhaps you mean "Lying" as opposed to "lieing". Either way, there is no...I repeat...NO evidence of that at all.

Prolonging a recession? How? What policies caused that? The recession lasted less than 18 months! As for "why" he cut taxes, can you again prove that? I'll give you the deficit....but I'll also remind you that Congress appropriates, not Bush.


Somehow I don't think you were saying the same thing when Bill Clinton raised taxes BIGTIME on the MIDDLE CLASS. Your statement is ludicrous.

Gilsch:


Wow. One word: Delusional. You read somehwhere? HAHAHAHHA. Stop...you're killing me.

WMD? The Iraqis would welcome us as their liberators? Problems with the supply lines during the blitzkrieg? The hasty re-assignment of soldiers in Afghanistan? The post-war? The timetable for everything? The mobile labs?

And how has Bush responded to all of this? "It wasn't my fault." That's his answer to everything, it seems.



I actually agree with you on most of this. There is hope, though. The Dems desperately need a real foreign policy, which I would argue they've never actually had.

With that said, unseating Bush isn't exactly a weak agenda. They ain't trying to get you to switch votes, you know.

Cheers
Scott

.

1. We have been welcomed as liberators on the whole. The majority of the population is not lobbing grenades at us.

2. Supply Lines: That's a pretty specific issue. I've heard it as well....but isn't that more of a Pentagon management issue? It obviously didn't disrupt the invasion.

3. Afghansistand: You'll have to elaborate. I'm not sure what, specifically, you;re talking about.

4. Post war: Again, what are you talking about? The post war plan was put into effect even before the war ended. Massive supply convoys entered the country. Infastructure is being rebuilt. A Coalition Authority was established. A provisional government by the end of this year. Yes, there are security problems. The picture you're painting is not accurate.

5. I don't think Bush has said "it isn't my fault" on really anything. Overall the operation is going very well. We have some casualties, but even that number is extremely low. We took over an entire country and have lost 600 lives doing it. I don't mean to scoff at that loss of life, but in military terms, it's a very low number. Those that have visited Iraq say that the picture is very different from the one we see on the news every night. Your statements are predicated on the notion that the effort itself is going badly...and it's not.

Bush = Evil ****er who lied to get us to kill thousands of people. That's enough reason for me that he should be releived of his duties.

THIS comes to mind right off hand . . . besides all of the other stuff that seems to force itself at the perirphery whish I am too tired, in my fevered ill state, to look for.

and as for that 'eletist' point and the rural vote . . . I said as much because I live in a rural environment and see what I see . . . but mainly because of the RED states and regions that voted for Bush are Rural . . . and if you followed my point that means ipso-facto- then they are refusing to be critical, insightful or intelligent
But seriously it is because he, who is NOT RURAL even though he comes from Texas, panders to the image of his folksy-goodness and that image is passed around out in these parts like it were-gospel . . .

all these rural folks who think that eurban people are pretentious while they are just 'dalt-of-the-earth' and the last thing in the world that they could be is superficial are in truly FOOLING themselves . . . . these people are as prone to falsity and self-delusion as anybody anywhere . . .
and a major means of their achieving that typical state of self-delusion (a problem that we are all prone to) is through propogating a FALSE image of "Honesty"