posted
Why make it an emotional plea right from the start? Why guarantee that you'll sound biased against the man, making your case against his policies immediately suspect?
I don't hate Bush. Bush the man seems like a nice enough guy, I got no problem with him.
I dislike nearly all of his policies, and I definitely disagree with his "end justifies the means" style of governing. I think that the war with Iraq was justifiable but avoidable, and that there was no good reason to have done it when we did and squander the international good will we had right after 9-11. I think his insistence on massive tax cuts contributed greatly to the current deficit. I think that if he wants Medicare and welfare fixed he should work to fix them, not purposely starve them in the budget so that people suffer while the programs strangle. I think he needs to accept that the No Child Left Behind law needs work and to stop pinning his entire education program on it, letting the others lapse or fade. I think that too many of his social policies are based on religious beliefs and not on scientific evidence. I think that the practice of removing regulations and adding barriers to the individual's legal options against a corporation is opening the door wide to corruption and malfeasance. I think that cutting taxes for the rich is fine within reason, but that allowing massive tax evasion and even rewarding companies with offshore tax havens by granting them major government contracts is foolhardy. I think that the practice of disarming regulatory boards and action committees by appointing only poeple who have spent their career fighting against the regulations and practices their job now requires them to enact is not only useless, it's insulting. I think his administration strong-arms those who disagree with it, hides anything that makes it look suspect, and ignores anything it doesn't like. I think that he and his administration are incapable of admitting to a mistake, no matter how small. I think that all of the things I dislike about his presidency will become much worse if he has a term when re-election is no longer a factor.
I think that, with the best of intentions, Bush and his people are crafting an America that no longer represents freedom and democracy. What I - or anyone - thinks of Bush the man is entirely besides the point and should have nothing to do with whom you vote for.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
If I come into this thread based on the thread title, and just want to vote "Yea -- I like Bush".....but then read everything you said above, it sounds like "Yea - I agree with you."
posted
I guess sometimes people get passionate about politics to the point of attacking politicians personally.
I know in the past 12 months, I have been known to comment loudly on how much I hate John Howard (PM of Australia). Do I actually hate the guy? No. And I have met him. Do I disapprove of a lot of his policies? Oh yes. And am I getting disenheartened that despite the harm he is doing to our country, he may get re-elected? Yes. Very much so.
Chris, you are, of course, right. It isn't about personal feelings. But sometimes, I can understand how people vent their frustration with public figures by framing that frustration in terms of personal anatagonism.
posted
Farmgirl: you're more than welcome to discuss anything I posted. I was careful to preface each one with "I think." That's true. These are my opinions. I try not to state them like they're absolute fact, since that encourages emotional rebuttals. And I'm very conscious of the fact that I could very well be wrong, that my own biases keep me from seeing the good that his policies do.
And make no mistake, some of his policies have done good. I'm just not convinced that different policies might have done better.
And I never said vote for Bush, after all... Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
...however that certainly doesn't mean I agree with him on every point. I see a lot of error.
I don't know ANY person I agree with on every point.
and I'm beginning to think more and more that it doesn't matter WHICH puppet we have in the White House -- so much is beyond our (voters) control and being controlled by things that are out of control....
posted
I think that Bush is the only President of recent history who could aptly be characterized as a puppet.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But do we really want to bring up presidents of the recent past?
If no third party arises, I imagine I'll vote for Bush because I'm strongly pro-life and I'm disappointed with the democratic filibusters to block court nominations. The main issue I disagree with Republicans on is gun control, but I don't really see that as something the dems are going after. Edit: The poll does not seem to overwhelmingly favor the dems. We'll see how Kerry is doing tomorrow.
It looks like it will all depend on how the economy appears to be doing at the time of the election.
For someone to vote Bush, the economy only has to be seeming to improve. Which given the press of the last two years, shouldn't be that hard.
posted
Filibusters are a way of life for politicians of all parties...and while I'm also pro-life, I don't like that Bush is trying to stack the SC with obviously strongly biased judges.
Besides, abortion isn't something that can be brought to a screeching halt, as hard as the man may try.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just curious, is everyone on this site so incredibly liberal, or is the reason that your arguements are so biased is because your mommy and daddy just happened to talk like this during breakfast?
It's time to understand the big picture, and actually consider everything that has happened instead of just picking and choosing the situations, you really don't understand anyway, in order to support your faulty point of view
posted
It was meant to be funny, not insightful. If you'd prefer, I could find a pro Bush cartoon for you and post that too.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
just to clarify, my comments are predominantly directed towards the original post, by Chris Bridges
Posts: 70 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Mickey, I'll say this much: most of the more literate, well-spoken people on the site nowadays lean slightly left. There are a few exceptions, but we'd be glad to get more; you're always welcome to start turning over rocks to find some well-spoken conservatives. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are, indeed, literate and well-spoken. So's Hobbes, for that matter.
I conditioned that response because I think what most rabid conservatives are missing when they get to this site and accuse us all of being "flaming" liberals is the drool factor; we have very few babbling, angry idiots on Hatrack, and there's a certain tradition on conservative boards to associate conservative thought with angry babbling.
Maybe if one of you were to post a hate-filled screed about Chelsea Clinton, mickey would feel more at home. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha, actually I am, it's just that all the times I'm arguing on this board seems to be about things on which I'm conservitive, I actually hold more liberal viewpoints than conservitive. At least the more important issues (to me) I'm liberal one.
But it's been a while since I've had a conversation with Tom where I wasn't on the conservitive side.
posted
I'm with Farmgirl on this. There's a healthy amount about the man's policies that I disagree with, but enough that I support that I'll probably end up voting for him, barring unforseen circumstances. I don't have time to make a list as long as the one in the first post if I'm going to be at work on time. But I can list the first examples that come to mind.
Dislike:
I like, in theory, the idea of cutting back government and passing the savings on to the hardworking taxpayers. I can also see the point in increasing spending for the benefit of all, although I don't support that type of idea as often. The problem I have with Bush is that I saw the tax cuts, but I've never saw the cutting back on spending that would have to accompany such a measure. Granted, I haven't studied his economic plan in detail, but this is what I see: "We're going to need $80 Billion for this, and an extra $200 Billion for that, and by the way, I'm so good at managing money, here's some back." Kind of a "have your cake and eat it too" vibe I'm picking up.
I also wish he would have stayed as focused on education as he was at the beginning of the term, but there were some things that diverted his attention, so I'll give him a little benefit of the doubt.
I also am a little disturbed at the anti-gay-marriage amendment. But I'll let Lalo rant about that one on my behalf.
Like:
He seems to be the only candidate that's more concerned with taking steps to root out and deal with the causes of skyrocketing health care costs than just sending the bill to the taxpayer. Even Lieberman, who I like, said in an interview that he would rather have the government pay for health care than try to make it cheaper. This could be a thread of its own, so I won't derail this one with any further comment, but it is an important issue to me.
Also, when I was considering the war with Iraq, their actual posession of WMDs was of minor importance in my personal list of pros and cons, so even if they never find any, I won't be too disturbed. Again, other threads have discussed this, so I won't do any more derailing...
And finally, I know it may have been a move of politically motivated pandering, but I was impressed with the theory behind his immigration reforms. It's about time we noticed the difference between people that want to come here to work and the ones that want want to come here because they heard that there's lots of cool free stuff.
Like I said, I don't think he's any kind of Messiah, and I am getting a little cynical about the political process in general, but if I end up choosing a major party candidate, he's got a pretty good lock on my "lesser of two evils" vote.
posted
I think Troll is a joker having some fun at the expense of the real troll, mickey_mouse.
BTW, pooka, you might find it interesting that Mr. Pickering, one of those candidates the Democrats have been opposing and whom Bush recently appointed as an interim appointee, strongly advocated increasing the penalties on interracial marriage during his college years, among other things advocating a new law by the state legislature in his school's Law Review.
And you know this administration's insistence that sentencing guidelines be adhered to by judges? Well, Pickering says he agrees with that. However, in the mid 90s he pressed to get a person sentenced for arson's sentence reduced to far below that allowed by federal guidelines -- so low that it likely would have violated federal law to do so. He had done this in no other cases, always sentencing well within federal guidelines. Part of the crime in question? Burning a cross on an African American family's lawn.
He also has a record of "incorrectly answering" questions which would make his record seem clearer -- for instance when questioned about a plee bargain in that same case, stating he did not know when he approved the bargain that the defendant had mere days earlier fired a gun into the house of the victims, despite it being part of the testimony he had heard -- the sentencing document bears his signature and includes that information.
Or another time, when he denied involvement with the Sovereignty Commission, a racist commission, despite a memo from the commission's records showing he had specifically asked to be kept informed on one of their actions.
More recently when he needed letters of recommendation due to his nomination, he specifically asked several lawyers to write him letters of recommendation and collected and faxed them himself (which would definitely have allowed him to read them). Even without being able to read them, but especially with that, this would have been a problem because several of the lawyers he asked currently had cases before him.
This wasn't years ago, even a comparatively few years such as the 94 arson case, or the many more back to when he was advocating higher sentences against interracial marriage. This was last year for his appointment hearings.
And you wonder why the Democrats would oppose him?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and that article for the Law Review wasn't just some minor thing. The legislature ended up following several of his recommendations.
Oh, and he doesn't think much of our system of government. According to him, "one-person, one-vote" is "obtrusive".
And for some reason he seems to have lost about 40% of his unpublished opinions -- he had over 1000 of them, and fewer than 100 published opinions. He only produced about 600 when asked to by the Senate, and said the rest were unavailable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's time to understand the big picture, and actually consider everything that has happened instead of just picking and choosing the situations, you really don't understand anyway, in order to support your faulty point of view.
And that's one of the things I come here for. Tell me where I'm wrong. I'd appreciate it if you'd start from the assumption that I have thought out my opinions instead of just parroting a party line, but I would like to know what I'm missing. As my topic-starter suggested, I admit I don't know everything.
I listed my major objections, one by one. I did not assault his character or his personality, only his methods. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible to discuss the issues and not the man, the party, or the ideology. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Saying that I disagree with everything that you have said would be inaccurate. I agree with your disapproval of Bush's stance on education. Although I'm not sure that I would oppose it for the same reasons. My experience with education was a highly competitive one in which the hardest working excelled and the less motivated were left far behind. I believe that this is a perfect system when our eduation should prepare us for life in the capitalist world that we find ourselves in. Funding for education should be distributed based on this system.
My main disagreement stems from your comments on the war. The war was necessary. The war with Iraq was intended to attend to issues that should have been solved over ten years ago. Lets not forget that America was not the only nation that believed Iraq to be highly dangerous. Even the governments of France and Germany believed this. They just choose to do little about it. We did something. And the world is a little bit safer for it.
I'm not entirely sure that I like the way in which the situation has been handled since the callopse of Saddam's regime, although I don't see a better way to handle it.
You argued that America should not have jeopordized the small amount of good will that we had after 9-11. Good will? You do understand that most of the world blames their problems on us. Not for any logical reason but simply because we have it good and they don't. [And don't lay into a history lesson on America's foreign policy here, I already know it.] That good will started to fade on 9-12.
Here's my main point. you started your post by saying that Bush is a nice guy but you disagree with nearly all of his policies. I want Bush to stay in office because I feel that he is about as Moral and ethical a guy that has been in the office in 20-30 years. I want to be able to trust my president. I don't agree with eveything that he does, but I do believe that he proceeds most of his decisions with the thought ... "is this really the right thing to do?"
Posts: 70 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I want to be able to trust my president. I don't agree with eveything that he does, but I do believe that he proceeds most of his decisions with the thought ... "What would Jesus do?"
If he really did that with every decision, I would do everything in my power to keep him as our president forever.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So so long as a person asks themselves WWJD, regardless of whether or not they do a very good job of guessing what jesus would do, they deserve to run our country?
quote: You do understand that most of the world blames their problems on us. Not for any logical reason but simply because we have it good and they don't.
From a 'most of the world' veiwpoint... you don't really believe that do you?
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Micky_Mouse: If it was my question - I was hoping for a simple 'no'. Or at least a 'I don't know, given I have never visited the countries in question, observed their governments, talked to their people, viewed their media, read their newspapers, and actually experienced what they thought about the USA and why'.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My main disagreement stems from your comments on the war. The war was necessary. The war with Iraq was intended to attend to issues that should have been solved over ten years ago. Lets not forget that America was not the only nation that believed Iraq to be highly dangerous. Even the governments of France and Germany believed this. They just choose to do little about it. We did something. And the world is a little bit safer for it.
The war may or may not have been necessary. It wasn't necessary then. What was necessary then was going after terrorists and terrorist-protectors in a big way. What was wasted was a golden opportunity to form alliances with countries that did not love us but hated terrorists more. To devise policies based on police "hot pursuit" policies to allow better investigation and information sharing. There was no reason we couldn't have waited six months to let the inspectors dig a bit more. There was no reason to wheedle, bully, and finally ignore the U.N.. The war on Iraq was based on an urgent need that now appears to not be there.
My own experiences with education run counter to yours, I'm afraid. The highly skilled do well only where the incompetent have not become entrenched, or gone into school administration. I think that basing a school's funding solely on how well their kids perform on tests will result in kids who graduate ready to get a job taking that test, because they won't be very suitable for anything else. It also results in adminstrators bending the records so they make quota. Funding for schools should be based on standardized tests, as well as local population growth and density, condition of the school, level of staffing, and historical comparison to check for unusual changes in performance. This is not, as supporters of the No Child Left Behind Act have suggested, a lessening of accountability. If anything I'm demanding that schools be more accountable, especially in audits, day-to-day performance, and human resources.
I have to admit, I don't see Bush as an ethical person, or at least not an ethical politician. He's publicly supported programs that he knew were being gutted or underfunded, apparently for the photo op. He's taken credit for bills that passed only after he fought them tooth and nail, and then without his signature.
Still don't hate him, though Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should point out now, before the inevitable comparisons to former presidents pop up, that I am not comparing Mr. Bush to any other president, living or dead.
I'm comparing him to the president I would vote for whole-heartedly, without reservation or doubt. Haven't met that person yet, but I can dream.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can trust Bush. He's doing what is best for the country. Just because the spin of the left is trying to make it seem like he's a liar doesn't mean that he is. You can trust him word for word. I'm so glad he's in there and can't wait for him to win again. He's a very religious person. Devoted both to his faith and family. I'll never understand the hatred and jealously of him when he's just trying to what's best.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can trust Bush. He's doing what is best for the country. Just because the spin of the left is trying to make it seem like he's a liar doesn't mean that he is. You can trust him word for word. I'm so glad he's in there and can't wait for him to win again. He's a very religious person. Devoted both to his faith and family. I'll never understand the hatred and jealously of him when he's just trying to what's best.
But Jay, being a Democrat, I'm less concerned with what I can do for my country than what my country can do for me.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
