"Why I voted for Bush"

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by dojoboy
I'm more concerned with how Kerry would rally allies. Is he going to risk our competitive economic and military advantage? I don't believe America should worry about this, at least as long as there are people in Europe, and the world, who want to make money.

Probably by talking to them and letting them know that their thoughts and concerns are important to us.

Also, not stomping away from International Treaties is a good thing too. If there are problems with a large international treaty that everyone has worked for years and years on, you sit down and work out those problems. You do not leave in a huff like Bush did.

Originally posted by dojoboy
Not an issue. Bush wins, Kerry makes concession speech, and life settles down. Kerry wins, Bush makes concession speech, headlines until Kerry inauguration, and life settles down.

Bush has almost constantly had a pretty low approval rating for the last year or two. Additionally, the international community has grown to dislike him more, not like him more. None of these things are going to change much, because Bush has said he won't change anything.

Originally posted by dojoboy
This tract really is ridiculous. No incumbent would ever in his/her right mind admit directly an error in judgement during an election year. There were many criticisms of the US government and allies in post-WWII Germany. There is never a perfect way for such things. As long as the person isn't punching a hole in the wall when criticized, I could care less about how someone takes criticism.

No, there is a very good point to be made here. Bush is in such a horrible position because he consistently ignores the advice of others that he doesn't like. This means that when you ask him what mistakes he has made he *has* to say he hasn't made any. Why? Because he can't say "Yeah, I made this mistake, and this is what I have done to fix the problem." He doesn't have anything like that to point to.

Originally posted by dojoboy
No more honest, no less honest. Right now Kerry's campaign is attempting to smear Bush over the missing explosives in Iraq, when they know full well that the explosives were missing before US forces went in.

Evidence is unclear a the current time, but imho there is good reason to believe the explosives where there when we went in and they have disappeared since then. Read the thread on the front page of this forum. The administration didn't claim they were already gone until almost a day after they were asked, which is 10 days after they said they knew they were gone.

Originally posted by dojoboy
Re: WMDs in Iraq, if the leader of my country used information that was not accurate (knowingly or unkowingly) I'm okay with that. There are times that the "ends justify the means." I prefer my enemies cautious and nervous, rather than comfortable and plotting.

Actions like this cause a pattern of behavior, and this is a pattern that freedom can't afford to let happen.

Additionally, the fact is the War in Iraq has distracted us from going after Terrorists and it has in fact caused more hatred and resentment of America in the Arab world. This has increased the number of terrorists, not decreased them.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Drachasor, you're dripping on the carpet...

Which means you have no retort but the ad hominem attack, I presume.

Thanks for the info.

-Drachasor

[Harry Tuttle]

Well sure, wide eyed, frothing at the mouth liberal.

[DrGerry]

Why I voted for Bush

Too much bad drugs?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Well sure, wide eyed, frothing at the mouth liberal.

[dojoboy]

Drachasor, I understand the issues & charges on the other side. As I said, if Kerry was in Bush's position, I would have voted for Kerry. But, Kerry was unable to convince me he would do better. I'm a hawk, not a dove; although, I did serve in the US Peace Corps.

My intent in posting this thread was to try and get a perspective on how I feel. There is so much that I do agree with in the Democratic Party platform. But, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry. I considered Badnarik, because of the "protest" vote, even looked at Cobb (Green Party).

I'm not pretending to be rational & consistent here, but trying to be.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Oerdin, is this the post you mean?
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...42#post2303242

Ok, Elijah. I will have to give it to you. I've looked through the OT arcieve and I can't find a better one and this thread seems to fit the time period so I will conseed. In that thread you said

You will note I said my position was SIMILAR and not identical. Nonetheless, feel free to open the thread . My position is that those capable of using greater logic and reason tend to be liberals, the intellectuals for example, and that conservatism is an easier position frequented often by brainless idiots and abusive word-wasters, simply because it needs less thought.

Which was not exactly like what I posted in the other thread. I don't remember what your sig quote was at the time nor can we know since the sig quote changes for all posts when the user updates the file but I have no reason to believe you've fabriocated your sig quote. Thus I will admite the quote wasn't word for word. Happy?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
It's ok... there are certain posts on OT whose disagreements automagically vindicate your own position. List as it stands for me is Wiglaf, Park Avenue, Oerdin, Ned, among *fear Ming* "others" .

Oh, please. Unlike Wiglaf I will admite when I make a mistake and conceed. Will you?

[Whaleboy]

Which was not exactly like what I posted in the other thread. I don't remember what your sig quote was at the time nor can we know since the sig quote changes for all posts when the user updates the file but I have no reason to believe you've fabriocated your sig quote. Thus I will admite the quote wasn't word for word. Happy?

That's cool, and big of you... let's put it down to misunderstanding

Oh, please. Unlike Wiglaf I will admite when I make a mistake and conceed. Will you?

Hehe my bad, that was below the belt, my apologies.

[SpencerH]

Originally 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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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 .............

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.

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.

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?

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/showthrea...23#post3369523

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

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.

-Drachasor

Edit: Links fixed

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'.

In any case, I didnt say that Bush was squeaky-clean. In fact, he's not the man I would choose to have as president. That doesnt change that Kerry has shown himself to be dishonest about issues that matter to me.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned

I wouldn't be surprised if the US military en masse went on the equivalent of a strike if this puke was elected. You would see morale drop and resignations accelerate as you could not imagine. Kerry would have to institute a draft in order to keep the military afloat as no one would voluntarily follow him.

0.5/10

[Imran Siddiqui]

That high?

[GePap]

"Why I voted for Bush"

That's nice.

[Ben Kenobi]

Cool.

And don't take any flak from these guys who oppose your decision. It's not like we've had no threads on voting for Kerry.

[Agathon]

I'd like to point out that those people who accuse Mac Users of being communists or associate Mac use with communism (like Lonestar) ought to think before they post.

I am the only commie machead. Mono is some sort of liberal.

The rest of Poly's Mac Users are either Bushies or Libertarians like Dojo. Drake is about the most liberal and he's strongly for Bush.

Or they're panag.

As for the fascist thing, I think there are definitely fascist elements to the current administration and its base. Rabid nationalism; characterisation of those who disagree (no matter how mildly) as "traitors"; coziness with big business; inability to tell the truth; concentration camps (Gitmo); an unprovoked invasion based on spurious evidence; reduction of complex issues into simple good vs evil; thinly veiled racism and cultural chauvinism (Islamophobia); abandonment of the truth in favour of appearances; self mutilation as an exercise in moral cleansing (the religious right suppressing their own monsters by attacking homosexuality and sexual freedom...

I could go on.

It's not fascism by any measure, but it is tending that way.