2 main reasons I won't vote for Bush

[Kelemvor]

First off I'm a Republican all the way and am very happy with how Bush has handled the whole War issue. But lately there are 2 things that are completely unforgivable to me that will probably have me voting for whoever the Democratic or Independant nomonee is (depending on their stance on the same issues).

1) Bush has said over and over that he is very strongly in agreement that the US should adopt a policy of discriminating against it's own citizens simply based on ones Secual orientation. I am not gay and don't know all that many people who are. However, why should people be discriminated against and not have the same rights as everyone else simply because they have a relationship with someone who is the same sex as them. The whole point of if someone is gay or not doesn't affect anyone, in any way, except for that couple. So if they want to get married, why should they not be allowed to? Now I'm not talking about having children or anything more than the simple fact of being able to get married. If Bush keeps his strong stance for this deliberate discrimination (and other candidates are opposed to it) then they will get my vote.

2) Bush seems to have complete disregard for the environment. He has opened up natrual forrest reserves to be completely destroyed for logging, oil digging, etc. The natural forrests and such we have left are so incredibly small alreayd, we need all the help we can get to preserve them. Eventually we will get to a point where they are completely gone and then it will be far too late to do anything about it. If he continues to reverse policies that are in place protecting forrests and parks and such and opens them up to being destroyed, this again is a main concern that would force my vote a different direction (again assuming other candidates have the opposite view).

Does anyone else share my concerns about this or is it just me? hmm.

Ah well.

 

[bozack]

not me.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
First off I'm a Republican all the way and am very happy with how Bush has handled the whole War issue. But lately there are 2 things that are completely unforgivable to me that will probably have me voting for whoever the Democratic or Independant nomonee is (depending on their stance on the same issues).

1) Bush has said over and over that he is very strongly in agreement that the US should adopt a policy of discriminating against it's own citizens simply based on ones Secual orientation. I am not gay and don't know all that many people who are. However, why should people be discriminated against and not have the same rights as everyone else simply because they have a relationship with someone who is the same sex as them. The whole point of if someone is gay or not doesn't affect anyone, in any way, except for that couple. So if they want to get married, why should they not be allowed to? Now I'm not talking about having children or anything more than the simple fact of being able to get married. If Bush keeps his strong stance for this deliberate discrimination (and other candidates are opposed to it) then they will get my vote.

2) Bush seems to have complete disregard for the environment. He has opened up natrual forrest reserves to be completely destroyed for logging, oil digging, etc. The natural forrests and such we have left are so incredibly small alreayd, we need all the help we can get to preserve them. Eventually we will get to a point where they are completely gone and then it will be far too late to do anything about it. If he continues to reverse policies that are in place protecting forrests and parks and such and opens them up to being destroyed, this again is a main concern that would force my vote a different direction (again assuming other candidates have the opposite view).

Does anyone else share my concerns about this or is it just me? hmm.

Ah well.

What is secual orientation?

 

[koryo]

I have lots of reasons not to vote for the guy, but I'm afraid he reflects the predominant views in this country right now, as much as I might not like that.

 

[Corn]

It's just you.

 

[lozina]

I don't know about #1, I think that issue is still up in the air, but I definitely share your concerns with the second issue. I have a deep respect for our country's natural beauty, and Bush has made such grotesque assaults on our environment that I sometimes wonder if he plans on raising his grandchildren here. His rollbacks of environmental protections and regulations on industries such as mining and timber are apalling. He even rolled back an environmental protection on wetlands that his father signed in.

some info

 

[koryo]

Pro-war, pro-environment, pro-gay rights?

You're probably one of a kind.

Good for you.

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
First off I'm a Republican all the way and am very happy with how Bush has handled the whole War issue. But lately there are 2 things that are completely unforgivable to me that will probably have me voting for whoever the Democratic or Independant nomonee is (depending on their stance on the same issues).

1) Bush has said over and over that he is very strongly in agreement that the US should adopt a policy of discriminating against it's own citizens simply based on ones Secual orientation. I am not gay and don't know all that many people who are. However, why should people be discriminated against and not have the same rights as everyone else simply because they have a relationship with someone who is the same sex as them. The whole point of if someone is gay or not doesn't affect anyone, in any way, except for that couple. So if they want to get married, why should they not be allowed to? Now I'm not talking about having children or anything more than the simple fact of being able to get married. If Bush keeps his strong stance for this deliberate discrimination (and other candidates are opposed to it) then they will get my vote.

2) Bush seems to have complete disregard for the environment. He has opened up natrual forrest reserves to be completely destroyed for logging, oil digging, etc. The natural forrests and such we have left are so incredibly small alreayd, we need all the help we can get to preserve them. Eventually we will get to a point where they are completely gone and then it will be far too late to do anything about it. If he continues to reverse policies that are in place protecting forrests and parks and such and opens them up to being destroyed, this again is a main concern that would force my vote a different direction (again assuming other candidates have the opposite view).

Does anyone else share my concerns about this or is it just me? hmm.

Ah well.

 

[Gagabiji]

I agree with you about #2.

 

[kylebisme]

i agree on both points, however i thought we should have focused on Afaganistan and kept our noses out of Iraq.

 

[xochi]

i agree with your second point as well.

 

[maluckey]

I am a realist.

That stated, I want to point out that many of the Middle East problems are because of their power over the worlds economies from their oil they revel in the easy money, and power that they have over the U.S... The United States simply cannot allow itself to be stagnant in the production of it's own natural resources, and subject to the whims of OPEC.

As far as the environment...

Many so-called environmental groups are more damaging to the environment that the Government ever was. Failure to allow hunting, often starves species en-masse from lack of food. Elimination of limited logging, allows more rotten trees, and underbrush that end up feeding wildfires that burn more of the forest than loggers would have taken. Responsible management is the answer, not total protection. I do beleive that the government needs to be more careful in its management of these resources if they are to be used in the future. The one thing that can never be forgotten, is that now man has arrived on the scene, it is mans responsibility, to help maintain the flora, fauna, and natural resources of the United States. We have proven time and again that man can screw up anything fairly easily when given the chance. Now we need to ensure that we can assist nature, to include controlled burns, logging, and thinning of the native animal population to ensure their health.

Ignoring the fact that mankind has now invaded the land, and has to use this land for its own survival, is naive.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: maluckey


Many so-called environmental groups are more damaging to the environment that the Government ever was. Failure to allow hunting, often starves species en-masse from lack of food. Elimination of limited logging, allows more rotten trees, and underbrush that end up feeding wildfires that burn more of the forest than loggers would have taken.

You make a rather strong statement and only support it with weak supposition. What scenario are you thinking of when you say "starves species en-masse from lack of food" because we didn't hunt them? I can understand perhaps feral species of some animal transported due to humans to an area they are not supposed to be, and they should be hunted/removed and I don't think you'll find an environmental group who would say otherwise.

As for the forestry thinning comment I believe it's a total farce. Don't you think nature has been doing fine for millions fo years managing it's forests without any multi-ceullular organisms running around 'thinning' the forests? Have you ever tried burning a piece of 'rotted wood' ? I can tell you from first-hand experience, unless your pour gasoline over it, its likely not going to burn! Forest fires are a natural occuring event that has persisted for countless years- long enough for the trees to evolve special seeds in their cones which only germinate under the heat of a forest fire. We can't stop this by thinning a few select trees here and there- unless you thin them so much there is 1 tree per acre! Also, if you're worried about udnergrowth you would not thin trees, as the more sunlight is exposed to the ground by reducing the canopy of a forest, the more undergrowth will grow. Unless of course, you hire a work force to go and pull the weeds every week or so as well.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
First off I'm a Republican all the way and am very happy with how Bush has handled the whole War issue. But lately there are 2 things that are completely unforgivable to me that will probably have me voting for whoever the Democratic or Independant nomonee is (depending on their stance on the same issues).

1) Bush has said over and over that he is very strongly in agreement that the US should adopt a policy of discriminating against it's own citizens simply based on ones Secual orientation. I am not gay and don't know all that many people who are. However, why should people be discriminated against and not have the same rights as everyone else simply because they have a relationship with someone who is the same sex as them. The whole point of if someone is gay or not doesn't affect anyone, in any way, except for that couple. So if they want to get married, why should they not be allowed to? Now I'm not talking about having children or anything more than the simple fact of being able to get married. If Bush keeps his strong stance for this deliberate discrimination (and other candidates are opposed to it) then they will get my vote.

2) Bush seems to have complete disregard for the environment. He has opened up natrual forrest reserves to be completely destroyed for logging, oil digging, etc. The natural forrests and such we have left are so incredibly small alreayd, we need all the help we can get to preserve them. Eventually we will get to a point where they are completely gone and then it will be far too late to do anything about it. If he continues to reverse policies that are in place protecting forrests and parks and such and opens them up to being destroyed, this again is a main concern that would force my vote a different direction (again assuming other candidates have the opposite view).

Does anyone else share my concerns about this or is it just me? hmm.

Ah well.

2. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They have every right that straight citizens have. I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex. No discrimination here.

3. Perhaps you need to read up some more on the natural forrests that were opened up for logging and oil digging. They are an extremely small amount of the total forrest area in the U.S. and are not going to adversely affect the environment. Either you find a better energy source or building material, or you better accept the fact that it is necessary for us to utilize the environment to power our cars, build our houses, and heat our homes. Either that, or we will need to "outsource" to other countries, which I''m sure would make a lot of people happy. More lost American jobs, a greater dependance on foreign countries... that's just what we need...

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

You say that the amount of land opened up to forresting is small, but every little bit adds up. Sooner or later we'll have nothing left.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

2. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They have every right that straight citizens have. I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex. No discrimination here.

If that isn't one of the most bone-headed, trollish things I've ever read up here I don't know what is!

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

2. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They have every right that straight citizens have. I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex. No discrimination here.

If that isn't one of the most bone-headed, trollish things I've ever read up here I don't know what is!

You must not visit P&N much...heh.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

2. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They have every right that straight citizens have. I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex. No discrimination here.

If that isn't one of the most bone-headed, trollish things I've ever read up here I don't know what is!

You must not visit P&N much...heh.

For good reason, apparently!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

2. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They have every right that straight citizens have. I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex. No discrimination here.

If that isn't one of the most bone-headed, trollish things I've ever read up here I don't know what is!

Really? Perhaps you misread what I said...

Can a straight man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a straigh man marry a man? No.

Can a homosexual man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a homosexual man marry a man? No.

Same rule applys to both parties...

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
You say that the amount of land opened up to forresting is small, but every little bit adds up. Sooner or later we'll have nothing left.

If that is the case, we shouldn't use any of our resources. After all, they will all be gone sooner or later...

 

[CaptnKirk]

I wil not vote for Bush because of 2 simple things:

1) What he says.
2) What he does.

The first I find to be lacking in comprehension and fact.
The second I find to be counter to the good of our nation.

 

[heartsurgeon]

First off I'm a Republican all the way and am very happy with how Bush has handled the whole War issue. But lately there are 2 things that are completely unforgivable to me that will probably have me voting for whoever the Democratic or Independant nomonee is (depending on their stance on the same issues).

Your not a "Republican" whatever you think that means...and if you think voting for a Democrat is going to "fit" closer with your definition of a "Republican all the way"...you really deluding yourself...more likely however, is that you are just another garden variety Liberal who thinks it's "cute" to pose as a Republican that has "seen the light"

give it a rest.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

1]
Yes Gays want to have marriage so they can be like heterosexuals in some way.
But having gay marriage doesn't elevate gays it destroys the meaning of marriage.
2]
Trees grow back, Big deal.Timber is a renewable resource unlike oil we will never run out of trees.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

2. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They have every right that straight citizens have. I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex. No discrimination here.

If that isn't one of the most bone-headed, trollish things I've ever read up here I don't know what is!

Really? Perhaps you misread what I said...

Can a straight man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a straigh man marry a man? No.

Can a homosexual man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a homosexual man marry a man? No.

Same rule applys to both parties...

Does a heterosexual choose to be heterosexual? No.
Does a homosexual choose to be homosexual? No.
Can a heteroxsexual get married? Yes.
Can a homosexual get married? No.


Ah...disparity!

 

[chess9]

GoPackGo:

The "c" is next to the "x" on the keyboard. He made a simple typo. Perhaps you might give your own prose closer scrutiny before we annoint you the P & N editor?

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
1]
Yes Gays want to have marriage so they can be like heterosexuals in some way.
But having gay marriage doesn't elevate gays it destroys the meaning of marriage.

Like heterosexuals haven't already done that with 1/2 of all marriages ending in divorce? And, ever watch COPS and see those lovely white trash marriages? Those aren't anomalies.

2]
Trees grow back, Big deal.Timber is a renewable resource unlike oil we will never run out of trees.

Not every country nor timber company is responsible enough to enforce reforestation.