View Full Version : Why should bush be re-elected ?
We have an election thread already... thought this would be a nice thread to put down reasons FOR and AGAINST why bush should be re-elected...
please keep it clean and concise and as factual as possible... bush sucks or kerry sucks posts are not exactly constructive :D
I am doing some work @ the moment... will make my first post wrt the thread topic in a bit...
Riptide
03-26-04, 11:58 AM
I'm going to surprise you and throw a couple critisizms out there. While I think he should be re-elected (vs. his current competition) I will say this:
1) WMD - where are they? They still need to answer what happened to those items.
2) Immigration - I don't support his guest worker policies and I interpret him as being
soft on this issue.
I'm going to surprise you and throw a couple critisizms out there. While I think he should be re-elected (vs. his current competition) I will say this:
1) WMD - where are they? They still need to answer what happened to those items.
2) Immigration - I don't support his guest worker policies and I interpret him as being
soft on this issue.
So what should we do about immigrations and what would Kerry do about immagration? Please remember what the administration purpose is not law but a purposal. The president isn't any more soft than Clinton or Bush 41. In fact they ALL have been soft on immagration.
1) If Al Quada were allowed to vote in the US election, who would they vote for? (we should vote the opposite of what they would).
2) Bush looks consistent and determined. Kerry flip-flops on every issue, often contradicting himself, and would make America look weak and indecisive.
3) Bush is more concerned about the good of his own country rather the kissing up to the UN.
4) Bush is about kicking ass, rather than appeasing terrorists.
So you are basically saying John Kerry is French. Ummm ok. That's It. I am now officially voting for George W. Bush.
Here is the sad thing about the message the democrats are putting out there in this campaign. They have a slogan that says "anyone but Bush". That is not a vision for America. That is hatred and a "anti-vote" not a pro-vote. When you have that mind set you will most likely get just "anyone" and that is much more scarey.
I do not see people excited or "for" Kerry. No one is. Kerry is a dud and everyone knows it. They are just against Bush. This is proof to what I have been saying all along about the war with Iraq. They are not against the war with Iraq. They are against Bush. If Clinton had this war they would eat it up with two spoons, just like Kosovo and the bombings of Iraq in 98. Republicans on the other hand would have back Clinton 100%.
I have a feeling not many people have been paying attention to bush's economic policies and bills he has helped pushed through congress based on bogus numbers :cool:
ah well... keep it coming lads...
p.s. udawg... I would rather NOT vote for someone who has done an inadequate job than NOT vote for someone I have not seen in that capacity yet... why should I choose mediocrity over a more moderate candidate ? there is no reason for me to...
Oh but can see what Kerry has done. He is a senator. He has a record and his record shows he has not done anything.
As you know I take the opposite opinion on the president's performance in office. I think he has done a good job considering the task need to be dealt with under his administration.
If you do not like the deficit then why would you vote for Kerry? His budget and what he wants to do would be vastly more expensive than anything Buth has done to date.
bush's record in texas did not preclude him from office did it? his record in business nor his record in university did not preclude him from office... and now we should hold kerry's record ?
its not just the deficit though it is one reason... how bout the exaggerations of the bush administration wrt wmd's(poland.. one of our actively contributing allies.. their president is on the record as saying we were taken for a ride)
/medicare (the true costs to the public were grossly understated and will cost us hundreds of billions more than the bush admin KNEW about but did not report in their package... heck there are republicans who are on the record as saying they were offered bribes to SUPPORT the package)... the actuary of the medicare bill was told he would be fired if he passed along the true costs to congress...
/the white houses false claims that they could not use the budget surplus to draw down the budget/the white houses overly rosy projections for tax revenues that they KNEW were unrealistic to pass through their tax cuts...
the most troubling problem for me on the domestic front IS medicare... and the way it was pushed through with guaranteed benefits for drug companies (ie big business) while @ the same time making it more expensive for the people it was supposed to be helping...
take the exagerations that we know to have happened along with the claims by bush administration officials (numbers published with absolutely no basis that I have been able to find anywhere... even on the bush support sites) of a $900 billion tax hike kerry will induce when coming to office...
why should i vote for a man who has blatantly and deliberately lied to the american people all the while satisfying big business and selling out the nation?
keep in mind I have not even brought up the iraq war cept in a passing statement wrt the polish president... nor have i brought up economic issues or unemployment...
I await your responses as to why with these basic facts bush deserves to continue to be employed...
Because Laura Bush is sexy?
I know I can't force anyone to do this but I will cordially request that at least in this thread some manner of seriousness prevail... we've all heard the french jokes and the like before... a general more serious discussion would be appreciated...
if this cannot happen (and we'll find out soon enough) I'll kindly request the thread to be closed because there was a very valid reason for me to have started this...
Riptide
03-26-04, 02:15 PM
So what should we do about immigrations and what would Kerry do about immagration? Please remember what the administration purpose is not law but a purposal. The president isn't any more soft than Clinton or Bush 41. In fact they ALL have been soft on immagration.
You already know my position on this. They should track down the lawbreakers and then kick their arses out of the country. And if it takes a tax increase to fund it, I am all for paying it. They have all been soft that is true but right now with the WoT being soft on it seems awfully stupid to me. There's no point on rehashing that whole discussion though, as it's another road we've been down before.
I don't think Kerry is going to do anything more about it either, I never said I would vote for him. ;)
It comes down to the lesser of two evils. As usual. :(
Riptide
03-26-04, 02:17 PM
1) If Al Quada were allowed to vote in the US election, who would they vote for? (we should vote the opposite of what they would).
2) Bush looks consistent and determined. Kerry flip-flops on every issue, often contradicting himself, and would make America look weak and indecisive.
3) Bush is more concerned about the good of his own country rather the kissing up to the UN.
4) Bush is about kicking ass, rather than appeasing terrorists.
:thumbsup:
You already know my position on this. They should track down the lawbreakers and then kick their arses out of the country. And if it takes a tax increase to fund it, I am all for paying it. They have all been soft that is true but right now with the WoT being soft on it seems awfully stupid to me. There's no point on rehashing that whole discussion though, as it's another road we've been down before.
I don't think Kerry is going to do anything more about it either, I never said I would vote for him. ;)
It comes down to the lesser of two evils. As usual. :(
I think they are soft for a reason... they understand the general impact of these immigrants on our economy @ large...
many low level jobs are occupied by illegal immigrants that would otherwise not be taken up...
that plus there are a large number of immigrants who do regularly vote so its a two-headed beast...
personally I don't have anything against temp immigrants so long as they are told they must A) learn english and B) understand they will not receive the same rights as naturalized immigrants...
english needs to be established as the pre-eminent language of the country... i am flippin tired of walking into a fast food joint or a shop and receiving blank stares when asking about a product...
Riptide
03-26-04, 02:24 PM
You see, I'm willing to put up. I'll pay to not only track them down and kick them out but also pay more in line @ the local safeway for my veggies. I don't care about the impact, so what if it costs me more money. I'm tired of playing games with these people.
Illegal immigrants have no right to vote nor should they be voting.
I agree with your last statement.
1) If Al Quada were allowed to vote in the US election, who would they vote for? (we should vote the opposite of what they would).
2) Bush looks consistent and determined. Kerry flip-flops on every issue, often contradicting himself, and would make America look weak and indecisive.
3) Bush is more concerned about the good of his own country rather the kissing up to the UN.
4) Bush is about kicking ass, rather than appeasing terrorists.
1) I think they would vote for bush... other terrorist groups have said as much...
2) this is patently not true... on both counts.. bush and his cabinet flip-flops regularly and are prone to exagertions and lies and basic distortions of the truth to suit their agenda... kerry undoubtedly as a politician is in the same boat but I have not seen him flip-flopping like the white house is painting him out to be doing...
3) this is patently false just from the information we have so far... read my post above for what I mean as a small sample... further no one wants to do any kissing up the UN but the body was founded for a purpose and thus far in the one massive departure we have taken from the Un it has been shown the UN was right afterall in not endorsing military action...
4) the ass kicking being done is by our soldiers... not president Bush... using them to the best of their abilities is the duty of a commander-in-chief... bogging them down in a situation they cannot be extricated from and placing them on the front line for an extended period of time w/o proper planning is not...
I commend him for going after the taliban (though in all honesty this was something the CIA should have lead earlier... however this was not bush's fault)
no one goes forth to blatantly appease terrorists... not even the spaniards as is evidenced by their stance...
You see, I'm willing to put up. I'll pay to not only track them down and kick them out but also pay more in line @ the local safeway for my veggies. I don't care about the impact, so what if it costs me more money. I'm tired of playing games with these people.
Illegal immigrants have no right to vote nor should they be voting.
I agree with your last statement.
I know several people who feel the same way BUT the cost to the economy may be a little more than perhaps you are considering... and who then will fill these jobs?
once all factors are considered and a proper strategy can be put in place fair enough... lets do it...
but keep in mind this nation was founded by immigrants and has evolved into what it is on the shoulders of immigrants...
Riptide
03-26-04, 02:40 PM
The jobs will be filled by current citizens once they raise prices for these goods and services and hence pay the workers more for them. Yes, costs will increase. I am fine with that. This problem has gone on way to long and like I said: it's time to quit playing games.
And this nation was founded on LEGAL immigrants.
bush's record in texas did not preclude him from office did it? his record in business nor his record in university did not preclude him from office... and now we should hold kerry's record ?
its not just the deficit though it is one reason... how bout the exaggerations of the bush administration wrt wmd's(poland.. one of our actively contributing allies.. their president is on the record as saying we were taken for a ride)
/medicare (the true costs to the public were grossly understated and will cost us hundreds of billions more than the bush admin KNEW about but did not report in their package... heck there are republicans who are on the record as saying they were offered bribes to SUPPORT the package)... the actuary of the medicare bill was told he would be fired if he passed along the true costs to congress...
/the white houses false claims that they could not use the budget surplus to draw down the budget/the white houses overly rosy projections for tax revenues that they KNEW were unrealistic to pass through their tax cuts...
the most troubling problem for me on the domestic front IS medicare... and the way it was pushed through with guaranteed benefits for drug companies (ie big business) while @ the same time making it more expensive for the people it was supposed to be helping...
take the exagerations that we know to have happened along with the claims by bush administration officials (numbers published with absolutely no basis that I have been able to find anywhere... even on the bush support sites) of a $900 billion tax hike kerry will induce when coming to office...
why should i vote for a man who has blatantly and deliberately lied to the american people all the while satisfying big business and selling out the nation?
keep in mind I have not even brought up the iraq war cept in a passing statement wrt the polish president... nor have i brought up economic issues or unemployment...
I await your responses as to why with these basic facts bush deserves to continue to be employed...
To be quite honest. If I were to go into this we would go round and round until the end of time.
We can talk about false budget surplus projections from the 90s if we want. That was used against Bush. It is my rhetoric against your. Yours if right from the democratic party line and mine will be from the Republican party line.
BTW do not deny that what you are saying is right from the DNC. I am not saying they told you to say this but your lines and mine are from our influeces on politics.
I think in part it may be that I am so slammed and frustrated at work right now that a debate is not appealing to me right now. So why did reply? Addiction. .... I need help! I have a problem.
I know I can't force anyone to do this but I will cordially request that at least in this thread some manner of seriousness prevail... we've all heard the french jokes and the like before... a general more serious discussion would be appreciated...
if this cannot happen (and we'll find out soon enough) I'll kindly request the thread to be closed because there was a very valid reason for me to have started this...
I am sorry to have inserted a little levity in a thread that you meant to remain on such a serious note. Perhaps, next time you might make us aware of you need for the utmost seiousness. In the meantime, reach back and remove stick.
BTW, if you PM me with such requests in the future it would be a sure sign of respect, rather than a thinly veiled shot at my post. Were this done inititially, I would have simply removed the offending post.
vampireuk
03-26-04, 03:27 PM
I refer you to my sig.
Jesus christ :eek:
PsychoSy
03-26-04, 05:08 PM
The Republicans biggest problem is they are stuck in the past. They're trying to re-create The Reagan Years and ... *looks at deficit* ... oh, they've done it to a degree but foreign policy and intelligence, no way. Reagan was a far better communicator than Bush Jr. and had a head on his shoulders that, even though I disagreed with much of his positions, I gotta respect him a teensy bit because his philosophy when it comes to intel and waging wars was simply "Trust ... but verify!" Reagan simply doesn't strike me as the sort of man that would "cook" or cherry pick intelligence to support whatever his adminstration's cronies and Corporate America thieves wanted. He'd go the extra mile and verify everything to make sure the intel stacked up.
Dubya didn't.
Bill O'Reilly is correct when he says "people vote with their wallets" but I'll add that the people also vote with their conscience and the lack of WMDs, the lack of jobs (there are currently 12,000+ unemployed Monroe County, Michigan residents and I'm one of them), and Medicare sound like the fat lady clearing her throat for her aria that'll send Bush on his way back to Texas.
I am sorry to have inserted a little levity in a thread that you meant to remain on such a serious note. Perhaps, next time you might make us aware of you need for the utmost seiousness. In the meantime, reach back and remove stick.
BTW, if you PM me with such requests in the future it would be a sure sign of respect, rather than a thinly veiled shot at my post. Were this done inititially, I would have simply removed the offending post.
fyi read my first post... I thought I made it abundantly clear...
To be quite honest. If I were to go into this we would go round and round until the end of time.
We can talk about false budget surplus projections from the 90s if we want. That was used against Bush. It is my rhetoric against your. Yours if right from the democratic party line and mine will be from the Republican party line.
BTW do not deny that what you are saying is right from the DNC. I am not saying they told you to say this but your lines and mine are from our influeces on politics.
I think in part it may be that I am so slammed and frustrated at work right now that a debate is not appealing to me right now. So why did reply? Addiction. .... I need help! I have a problem.
hmm... ok let me start by saying what i am putting forth is not from the dnc... I don't even go to the DNC websites so I would not know anyways... what I do know is that info such as that wrt medicare is NOT from the DNC... various sources such as newsweek/time and on the internet... suffice to say big media... not small non-descript sites...
the bush admin has done like others in exagerating things here and there... the press secrataries routinely spin numbers to make things look better... but falsifying numbers is a whole other thing... especially by way of politcal pressure... I'll refer you to the case of Tom Scully (bush loyalist) and Rick Foster (actuator of medicare bill)...
you make it sound like everything I say is pure political spin... consider for a moment that what I am saying is true (it has to be btw... since I am basing it on factual information and numbers) what say you then? are you going to just bring up political motives as the only argument for bush?
keep in mind I have maintained from the start when I joined here that i am a moderate... I am not registered to vote for either party therefore am technically an independent and I have voted for republicans and democrats (when I have voted) so that argument goes out the window...
what irks me is the sheer polarization of this nation by bush and the fact that even with all the information we have present to us... he is tolerated and no one delves deeper into the facts...
I will bring up the economy again as I have done so on many many occasions... I will guarantee 90%+ of the US population that is literate does not know how it works... nor does it know the national debt ceiling... nor does it know where money for mortgages and the like comes from and so on and so forth...
governments just take advantage of the idiocy of the general public and play around with a few choice issues to differentiate between the parties...
however bush is playing with not just the lives of troops in iraq but also with the financial future of this nation...
do me a favor and just with a non-partisan view-point have a read through all the data out there and all the facts surrounding the points I brought up... then come back and tell me I am regurgitating DNC info..
First of I said what I said because It is the same thing I hear from democrat elected officials. It is the same thing the liberal media says. Most of it is just pure spin. I have followed politics to long to not know spin when I see it.
When it comes to the economy you are spitting out the same line from the dems. It is a lie. The economy is doing well. Further proof is that it has been reported that employers of major companies and small companies all see that there will be a highering increase in the second quarter this year.
Now I am not saying you are dumb but you do have your point of view on politics and life that is different than mine. I have certain political rhetoric I spit out just the same. I think most of mine is correct and you think it is wrong. It is just that the numbers on the economy do not lie. When you just say they are McJobs that is spin and not accurate. Your account on the increase in the economy does not take into consideration many other factors such as increases in efficency and the dramatic rise in self employment.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.