"Why I voted for Bush"

[Agathon]

Anti intellectualism as well.

[Agathon]

BTW

Oerdin

[Al B. Sure!]

well some of my friends have basically cracked and said they are voting for Bush. what do i mean by cracked? I mean the anti-Bush rhetoric forced unto them everyday finally reached the critical point when they realized it was all complete bull****... yall liberals in Philly just pushed too hard...

it was a couple of things... the blaming Bush for the flu... blaming Bush for soldiers dying (like one of my friends said, every soldier enlisted knowing the risks)... and dozens of other things...

it got to the point where one guy (who is pro-life, pro-death penalty, and opposed to welfare) who was always quoting Michael Moore as gospel (once again, conservatives who swear they are liberals) suddenly just did a 180 when he heard some woman just lamentating every problem and blaming Bush for things completely irrelevant... he did a 180 on the spot and realized how stupid the liberals are.

see what yall don't realize is that yall liberals are overdoing it. you blame Bush and the GOP for every little thing (come on now... the flu?) because you're trying to get more and more poeple to hate Bush and ultimately the only thing you are doing is showing your own stupidity and ignorance.

thank you liberals for adding three new Bush votes from Philly...

[Agathon]

You don't understand AS. Some of us want Bush to win. We want the US to be a third world country so that we don't have to put up with your stupidity any more.

Bush has been the biggest Xmas gift the international left has ever received. And all he's doing is pretty much what the US has always done, only more blatantly and without any shiny paper and ribbons. If Kerry is elected, it will be back to the ribbons.

When you get people like my grandfather (a staunch Thatcherite) spouting stuff that could have come from Noam Chomsky's mouth, you know that we are getting somewhere. I've had quite a few old friends in the last few years tell me that they finally realised what I was talking about, and that it was true.

One murderous superpower down, one to go.

[Ben Kenobi]

self mutilation as an exercise in moral cleansing (the religious right suppressing their own monsters by attacking homosexuality and sexual freedom...

As opposed to the liberals who cleanse themselves by attacking the church?

Get a clue about this agathon, we aren't speaking up about these things because it makes us feel good.

It doesn't. We do so because we can't stand to have what we believe is good to be spoken of as evil.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Funny that we ignored France (and some others) that doubted we'd find anything. Funny that we ignored our own intelligence that indicated there was nothing. Funny that we absolutely trusted reports that were based on hypothetical projections when there were inspectors on the ground that could have guaranteed a conclusion. Oh, and if Iraq had been moving stuff around, our surviellance was good enough to help the inspectors track such things down.

Wanna provide some citations for the TS material you've had access to? Reports about TS intel that end up in the news are not worth the electrons they're written with.

Even Hans Blix said he was surprised when no WMD were found. The only credible witness I've seen with intel/Iraq/WMD experience who testified that he believed they would find nothing (only after the re-admittance of the inspectors) was Duelfer.

Hans Blix wanted to go back in, but he wasn't too surprised nothing was found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3160602.stm

And if you somehow missed that almost the entire world was skeptical of what Britain and the US were saying, then you are grossly out of touch with the international community.

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Instead of having patience and investigating the matter, we went to war. There was no rush. Under such scrutiny Iraq was contained and couldn't do anything. Additionally the sanctions were going to remain (all countries on the Security Council wanted them to remain). any holes in the Oil for Food program could have been fixed.

There was no rush, no rush at all.

Whether it would have been better to have dealt with Iraq after Afghanistan was over is a new question. For 11 years Hussein defied the UN resolutions. The Duelfer report made it quite clear that Iraq wasnt contained and that the oil for food program was a disaster (how high that corruption goes within the UN, French, and Russian governments has yet to be determined). What reason was there to believe that the Iraqi's would allow the inspections to finish? Their track record on the issue over 11 years was hardly 'stellar'. Saddam Hussein admitted to Duelfer that he wanted to keep the possibility of Iraqi WMD 'on the table' in order to negate Iranian aggression.

BTW. That was a possibility even discussed here at poly when faced with the lack of evidence of WMD.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722144.stm

THe Deufler report comments on the Oil for Food program, but in no way indicates it was causing anything close to an immediate threat. There was plenty of time to patch up the loopholes that existed and make sure that Saddam couldn't take advantage of the program. Sanctions were not going away, and Saddam was not a threat for the near future, especially with inspections going on. We called off the inspections by deciding to go to war, Saddam didn't.

There is also no indication of any widespread corruption regarding the oil for food program in the U.N., Germany, or France. Nor the U.S. I'd add, which also had companies involved in the corruption (though their names haven't been released).

As for Afghanistan, dealing with it before any serious considering of invading Iraq was question they should have been asking themselves then. It should not be a "new" question.

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
If you ignore their report that there is no evidence of any collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then sure, I guess there is "virtually nothing."

I didnt ignore it. All that report mentions is one comment on a memo by a Rice staffer

"The memo found no “compelling case”that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks."

Given the wealth of reports from the intel agencies I call one short blurb from a staffer 'virtually nothing'.

I guess you ignore what the Commission itself said, as well as Rumsfeld:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3718956.stm

http://cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/report.release/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3916175.stm

There was no evidence of any collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there were only the rare interaction between the two parties. No collaboration.

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Is this because Bush has no plans to balance the budget and Kerry does? Is this because Bush wants to increase our debt by more than 3 trillion dollars and Kerry wants to minimize the increase and reduce the debt as much as possible? Bush has said he wants to reduce the deficit, but he has offered no plan as to how that is to happen; Kerry has.

I'd rather have my hard earned cash in my hand rather than in the governments coffers. As a general rule, republicans agree with that viewpoint and democrats dont. I call that fiscally responsible. Candidate promises about taxes are fluff or perhaps you're too young to remember Bush I's promises.

I see, so Bush increasing spending and decreasing taxes so that your children will have to have massive taxes to get us out of the hole we are in is no problem to you? I am talking about our huge deficit and debt, something you seem to have forgotten. Bush has no plans on how to take care of it, and you seem to just ignore that it exists (pretty much like Bush). Conservatives have traditionally never found ignoring a deficit or debt fiscally responsible.

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
And when has this occurred with Bush? When haven't we had time for more talk than what has happened?

So you're saying Bush didnt act? Interesting.

I thought I stated it pretty clearly. We've always have had plenty of more time to talk THAT WE DIDN'T USE, because Bush has acted rashly.

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Afghanistan is just about the only answer, and Kerry would have done the same thing, though with better execution and more troops staying in Afghanistan near the end.

No, all we have is what pundits say Kerry would have done or not. It's hardly the same thing as actually doing something. Clinton had lots of chances to act against Al Queda in Afghanistan and didnt. What suggests to you that would Kerry have done anything different from Clinton? His war record, his actions before congress after Vietnam, his support for the military and inelligence while in the senate .............

Clinton's Administration tried to warn Bush that something big was on the horizen, but they were ignored. Clinton kept terrorism under control and he kept it as a nuisance. He did this by meeting every day with advisors on terrorism. Bush wasn't half as vigilant before 9/11.

If 9/11 had happened, then any president would have taken swift, decisive action against those responsible. Of course, it might have been the case that we wouldn't of had 9/11 if a more reasonable administration that listened to others had been in charge.

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
And who got us here? Who made the nation and the world so divided over how the U.S. was handling things? Who took one of the most unifying moments in U.S. history (9/11) and turned the next three years into the most divisive?

The 2000 election demonstrates that the country was split along the same lines prior to 9/11. Perhaps you think that if Kerry wins that the people who hate him now will change their minds.

If you somehow think we are just as divided as we were in 2000, you are quite, quite wrong. There was a lot more apathy and a lot more people that didn't really care, even after the SCOTUS mess. 9/11 brought everyone together, both in the US and in the World, but Bush took that golden opportunity of unity and squashed it by his inability to handle diplomacy.

I know I certainly had a much more positive view of Bush 4 years ago than I do now, and I am willing to wager that is true of nearly everyone that is voting against Bush this election. Just go to the gallup poll's website and you can easily see he has increased the polarization, not decreased it or maintained status quo.

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
The fact that the Bush administration continually silences and marginalizes desenters, to the point of not even allowing scientists a part of any executive sanction comittee if they disagree with the President on any issues (no President in anything close to recent history has done this), might be a clue that one group is worse than another. They marginalize generals, civil workers, and anyone else that disagrees with the administrative line.

Wanna provide some refs so we're talking about the same thing? In any case, guess what, people have differences of opinion. At some point, someone has to make a choice.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F12F8395E0C7A8DDDA90994DC404482&incamp=archive:search

(hmm, they seem to have made this pay-only in the last week).

There is of course Sineski and others in the military that said there weren't enough troops.

The fact that Bush and Cheney have said they would do everything the same way in Iraq if they had it to do over. (explicitely they have said this. Cheney in the debate, and Bush in the last two weeks). All this is testement to how they simply don't listen and pay attention or acknowledge how they might be wrong. They claim everyting is going well in Iraq, when it clearly is not. If they cannot see problems, then they cannot fix problems.

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
They refuse to listen to such viewpoints, which is one major reason why we don't have enough troops in Iraq. They also refuse to listen to the countries involved in the 6-way 'talks' with North Korea when they want 2-way talks to start.

You dont suppose they might have completely valid reasons for why they did those things or have those opinions?

Which I suppose neither of us can fathom nor can the American people which is why they never say them?

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Well, you haven't looked into things. Factcheck.org, a site recommended by Cheney, clearly indicates that Kerry lies a lot less and in less severity than Bush:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3369448#post3369448

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3369523#post3369523

You're using your own interpretations as references. Perhaps you'd like to use the bible to prove the existence of god.

I am sorry. I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of COUNTING. Because that's all I did. I went into each article, counted the lies, and then I added them all up. You can go look and check. It is pretty simple. Oerdin's (sp?) position is a bit more subjective, but not too much.

If you disagree you can post where you think he erred or give your own assessment. Since I listed each article it is pretty easy to do so for me. You aren't too busy saying Kerry lies more to go check to see if that is actually the case, are you?

Originally posted by SpencerH

Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Bush, on the other hand not only does the above, but has Karl Rove in the employ, a man known for his win-at-all costs attitude. He spread lies in the South saying that McCain was homosexual in the 2000 primaries. He spread pictures of McCain's adopted Nigerian daughter (who is black) in the South, only stating that she was McCain's daughter. He deliberately stirs up the worst aspects of the human psyche in order to win campaigns. This is Bush's campaign manager, a man that Bush trusts. It speaks of a lack of ethics and lack of a moral judgement.

As for Karl Rove, he's no friend of mine. Shall we mention the names of the democrats doing the same job for their 'man'.

Is the guy Kerry is using even HALF as bad as Karl Rove? Is the man Kerry trusts even HALF as bad as the man Bush trusts?

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
well some of my friends have basically cracked and said they are voting for Bush. what do i mean by cracked? I mean the anti-Bush rhetoric forced unto them everyday finally reached the critical point when they realized it was all complete bull****... yall liberals in Philly just pushed too hard...

it was a couple of things... the blaming Bush for the flu... blaming Bush for soldiers dying (like one of my friends said, every soldier enlisted knowing the risks)... and dozens of other things...

I don't agree with the flu-thing at all, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush lies a lot more and in worse ways than Kerry does.

I guess your friends don't pay attention to Bush's lies. Maybe they should visit factcheck.org, and read about current events more.

-Drachasor

[Agathon]

As opposed to the liberals who cleanse themselves by attacking the church?

Why are they doing this? Is it because they're in league with Satan?

No.

It's because certain religious people want to force their religion down the throats of others by persecuting homosexuals and other "deviants".

You either take liberal democracy as primary or religion. There is no real compromise (although some people like to believe that there is). I agree with you when you say that liberal democracy is anti-religious. It is. It is anti-anything which would seek to supplant it.

It so happens that I support liberal democracy, because keeping peoples' noses out of others' private, personal choices causes less damage than allowing half a country to act as the morality police.

In a modern pluralist society, there is simply no reasonable option but to keep religion out of the law.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's because certain religious people want to force their religion down the throats of others by persecuting homosexuals and other "deviants".

You are the one bringing up the term deviant, not I. Even the Catholic catechism merely says disordered.

You either take liberal democracy as primary or religion. There is no real compromise (although some people like to believe that there is). I agree with you when you say that liberal democracy is anti-religious. It is. It is anti-anything which would seek to supplant it.

No, I'm not talking about liberal democracy. I'm talking about the self-professed liberals in particular, the ones who cleanse themselves by attacking the church, be it with spraypaint, or through words that make them feel better.

It so happens that I support liberal democracy, because keeping peoples' noses out of others' private, personal choices causes less damage than allowing half a country to act as the morality police.

I agree with you here. That's why I think those who prefer the church, ought to have their choice respected by those who disagree with them.

Just because one disagrees with someone, does not mean that you reject them altogether. Funny, how everyone gets down on the church for judging people, when those same people are so quick to judge Christians.

In a modern pluralist society, there is simply no reasonable option but to keep religion out of the law.

Yet that is a futile quest, Agathon. You study virtues. Do they not come from the same source?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As opposed to the liberals who cleanse themselves by attacking the church?

Get a clue about this agathon, we aren't speaking up about these things because it makes us feel good.

It doesn't. We do so because we can't stand to have what we believe is good to be spoken of as evil.

How about you take your holier-than-thou, bigoted righteousness elsewhere?

[Agathon]

No, I'm not talking about liberal democracy. I'm talking about the self-professed liberals in partricular, the ones who cleanse themselves by attacking the church, be it with spraypaint, or through words that make them feel better.

And would such people not do this if certain religious elements weren't attacking them at every opportunity.

Yet that is a futile quest, Agathon. You study virtues. Do they not come from the same source?

It doesn't matter where they come from. People want manifestly different laws for many things and agree on only a few, so the only solution is the social contract.

Just because one disagrees with someone, does not mean that you reject them altogether. Funny, how everyone gets down on the church for judging people, when those same people are so quick to judge Christians.

You know I don't agree with that either. But I don't see the average liberal wanting to make homosexuality compulsory.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Japher
whaleoy=elijah=thale?!!!!

I voted for Bush just to p1ss off all you pinko commie and librotarians...!!

You are under our control

[Ben Kenobi]

How about you take your holier-than-thou, bigoted righteousness elsewhere?

I didn't start this Mr. Fun.

Why are you standing up for aggie here?

[Drachasor]

Hmm, well as far as people cleansing themselves go, I recommend one cleanse oneself with snuggles. Less offensive and likely more effective.

Snuggles:

Me snuggling with my fiance':

Someone else snuggling with my fiance': /

If that someone is a girl: ///



-Drachasor

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




I didn't start this Mr. Fun.

Why are you standing up for aggie here?

Yeah, I saw what statement from Agathon you were replying to.

Doesn't mean that I will stand up for homophobic bigots, though.