Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Oh, so if I don't like Bush, you assume I'm a Democrat down the ballot.
Actually what I assume is that people who say things like "
Bush has nothing except fear mongoring to base his re-election on and soon more and more people will learn to realize that. He has to run attack ads, because the issues just simply aren't with him. The war on terrorism is a disaster (much like Reagan's war on drugs). The economy is stagnant at best. Incomes are down for the second straight year. The right-wing nutjobs are keeping stem-cell research held back because they fear that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies will lose money. The First Lady is running around saying that stem-cell research claims are pipedreams (paraphrased there). He's alienated this country with the rest of the world. I mean, I honestly can't think of one, single reason to vote for the man." are hopelessly blind and stubborn. Are you telling me there's a snowball's chance in hell that Bush could say or do anything that would earn him your vote? No, of course not, because you're already out of your gourd. Those comments are not those of a fair-minded individual, they're angry, biased rantings.
I saw this country get involved in "wars" while the economy was going down the toilet.
I realize I'm wasting my time, but:
#1) the period of steepest economic decline was actually the last year under Clinton. Most people don't understand that because they don't think with any depth. The economy actually continued to grow in the last year under Clinton, but the drop from the amount of increase in '99 to '00 was the largest margin of any year during the recent recession. But I don't blame Clinton for the recession either. The economy was over-heated for a variety of reasons and no one could stop a correction.
#2) The Economist, perhaps the world's foremost and widely respected publication (it's out of London), praised George Bush for his handling of the economy and creditted his tactics for making the recession much shorter and less severe than most economists thought it would be.
I see sensible government spending being turned into vapid tax rebates and large deficits being created all over again.
Remember that the Reagan-era deficits were during the second-largest period of growth in U.S. history (Clinton's was largest). Most people forget that. But for the record, I think Bush is pandering too much to liberals by spending far too much on various programs. I'm all in favor of slashing the budget to the bone. Did you know that we already pay more collectively in taxes than some socialist European countries (federal plus state plus local plus sales, etc)? I don't know why Republican leadership doesn't stand up and call the Democratic leadership socialists, because that's exactly what most of them are.
I see our ports and airports virtually unguarded and unprotected while billions are spent overseas "saving" a country.
Oh please. A remarkable amount has been changed since 9/11, and I actually think the Department of Homeland Defense is a colossal waste of money. That, just like the 9/11 commission, was a concession to get votes. We need to drastically improve security in this country, but not by creating more bureaucracy and office jobs. We need to eliminate the red tape and put people who know about security in charge of security, like possibly the military.
I see President Bush practically give up on the search for Bin Laden, who was supposed to have been public enemy number one.
Have there been any more attacks on U.S. soil? Have there even been any attacks on hard U.S. targets overseas? No and no. Al Qaeda is still a threat, but there's little to no room for criticism of the actions in Afghanistan. (plenty of room to criticize Iraq) We deftly used the Northern Alliance to get rid of the Taliban and send al Qaeda running, and now we've maneuvered Pakistan into giving us honest help instead of lip service. Seriously, if you want to have any credibility you need to attack someone where they actually deserve it. Iraq is more than fair game, but Afghanistan has been handled just about as well as any military campaign possibly could.
You can agree or disagree with me, but don't take that indignant tone with me that I'm wasting you're "thinking man's" time.
Anyone who says that there's no good reason to vote for Bush is wasting everyone else's time. You have nothing to bring to the table, no perspective, no discussion, no open-mind. Like I said, it's not a liberal thing because there are plenty of people just like you on "my" side of the aisle, and you'll just have to take my word for it that I dismiss them just as thoroughly as I'm dismissing you. But by all means, prove me wrong. Show me that you're not blind and biased by admitting that there are reasons to vote for George Bush, that he is doing what he thinks is best for the country, and that he appears to be a good man.
MonkeyK:
I think I've stated my position explicitly. Anytime you make moves based on someone else's in order to help them and make associations with them, you're working together. I don't even know why anyone would argue about this. It's blindingly obvious and arguing otherwise just looks silly to anyone who isn't that biased.
Facebook
Twitter