Tell me again...why would you vote for Bush over Kerry?

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: X-Man
My question is, taking Bush out of the equation, what reason is there to vote for Kerry?

I've heard a lot of talk about how he'll do a better job, but no concrete plans. When pressed, he says he doesn't want to tip his hand before being elected. :roll:

Taking Bush out of the equation is the reason to vote for Kerry.

Your second paragraph is false.

 

[kage69]

The democrat poster boy Bill Clinton - avoided the draft through student deferments

Yep, just like Cheney. Then again, it doesn't look as bad with Clinton, as he's got the education and intellect to show for it. Cheney on the otherhand prefers to start unnecessary wars and let lower class kids do the fighting and dying.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
1.) Bush is a strong moderate leader
2.) Bush is less likely to appoint a supreme court justice that?ll use his station to intact his view of what ?America should be?, but rather interpret things as our laws intend.
3.) Bush is more likely to do what is unpopular but best for America
4.) Taxes going up for any group increases the drain of prosperity from all groups.
5.) Bush will fill out the necessary departments for control of terrorism while doing a better job of avoiding ?big brotherism?
6.) Bush wants to set us on a path to achieve true greatness through space exploration.
7.) Bush recognizes the problems systemic to the illegal immigrant issue and has a truly visionary solution.
8.) Bush understands the need to bring American style freedom of debauchery to the barbaric nations of the world that are the spawning grounds of terrorism.

1. Wrong.
2. Wrong.
3. Wrong.
4. Debateable.
5. WRONG.
6. If you say so.
7. WRONG.
8. Correct! However, having already seen his methods of 'bringing American freedom,' this stands as an excellent reason to drop this fool like a bad habit come Nov.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

there is no compelling reason to vote Bush other than if you agree with his social positions (abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc.).

 

[kage69]

there is no compelling reason to vote Bush other than if you agree with his social positions (abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc.).

...and don't mind your President being the international posterchild for stupidity and deceit.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Two party system --> Two people running for office. Bush or Kerry? Not Bush. Therefore, Kerry. That's all the reasoning you really need if you decided you will not vote for Bush. Or you can just not vote.

 

[Oblivious]

There is no reason to vote for Kerry - a legislator who can't make up his mind, a war veteren who defaces OTHER'S medals and a puppet for the already decadent democratic party.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: X-Man
My question is, taking Bush out of the equation, what reason is there to vote for Kerry?

I've heard a lot of talk about how he'll do a better job, but no concrete plans. When pressed, he says he doesn't want to tip his hand before being elected. :roll:

If you take Bush out of the equation--you get rid of the problem in our domestic and foreign policies today.

It's a bit soon to say Kerry will will remove policy problems. Let's wait until he's had 4 years to botch things up.

I'm quite looking forward to seeing which small defenseless country Kerry attacks, and then how his supporters try to spin it.

You are quite right that Kerry is an unknown quantity. We simply don't know what kind of President he would make.

We do have, on the other hand, a track record for Bush. With all due respect, an undistinguished record of failure, and corruption (fiscal and moral).

So if the question is: Why should I vote for Bush--the answer is clear that there is no justification for supporting Bush with my vote. No justification for rewarding failure. More to the poin--we have a responsability to punish a corrupt government by way of voting them out of office.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: X-Man
My question is, taking Bush out of the equation, what reason is there to vote for Kerry?

I've heard a lot of talk about how he'll do a better job, but no concrete plans. When pressed, he says he doesn't want to tip his hand before being elected. :roll:

If you take Bush out of the equation--you get rid of the problem in our domestic and foreign policies today.

It's a bit soon to say Kerry will will remove policy problems. Let's wait until he's had 4 years to botch things up.

I'm quite looking forward to seeing which small defenseless country Kerry attacks, and then how his supporters try to spin it.

You are quite right that Kerry is an unknown quantity. We simply don't know what kind of President he would make.

We do have, on the other hand, a track record for Bush. With all due respect, an undistinguished record of failure, and corruption (fiscal and moral).

So if the question is: Why should I vote for Bush--the answer is clear that there is no justification for supporting Bush with my vote. No justification for rewarding failure. More to the poin--we have a responsability to punish a corrupt government by way of voting them out of office.

A lot of times people are willing to vote for the unkown if they don't like the known. That'sa why almost as many people voted for the Dub in 2000 as did for Gore!

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: batchusa
Strong Leader on the War Against Terror

Let me think...Before 9/11 Bush spends a bunch of time on vacation and doesn't pay much attention to al Qaeda. Ok, I give you hindsight is 20/20 and he maybe couldn't have stopped 9/11. However, when 9/11 does happen what does our "strong leader" do. Sit frozen for 7 minutes reading a story to kids. Calm under fire or frozen in fear?

dude, he was in office for 9 months when the attacks happened. its not like he was Bill Clinton, being in office for 8 YEARS and doing nothing about al Qaeda and bin Laden!

 

[piasabird]

Bush does not have a clue what to do about the Mexican Border. People come thru there like a giant fire hose. I say close the border with Mexico and shoot people that try to sneak across. Just put up consertina wire and plant some landmines.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: umbrella39

You support a coward that hid behind his daddy's coattails to avoid active duty in vietnam, that tells us everything we need to know about you and your character or obvious lack-there-of.

:roll:

The democrat poster boy Bill Clinton - avoided the draft through student deferments[/b]

He opposed the war for moral reasons. Our president supported it and felt that it should have been fought more aggressively. He just didn't want to go fight more aggressively

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Bush does not have a clue what to do about the Mexican Border. People come thru there like a giant fire hose. I say close the border with Mexico and shoot people that try to sneak across. Just put up consertina wire and plant some landmines.

I agree 100%! All those water towers that the libs want to set up should be set up 50 yards away from sniper towers!

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: umbrella39

You support a coward that hid behind his daddy's coattails to avoid active duty in vietnam, that tells us everything we need to know about you and your character or obvious lack-there-of.

:roll:

The democrat poster boy Bill Clinton - avoided the draft through student deferments[/b]

He opposed the war for moral reasons. Our president supported it and felt that it should have been fought more aggressively. He just didn't want to go fight more aggressively

I do not care what the reason is for either one, if you want to point fingers at someone who DUCKED the war, then you have to point them at EVERYONE that ducked the war! You cannot pick and choose.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: batchusa
Strong Leader on the War Against Terror

Let me think...Before 9/11 Bush spends a bunch of time on vacation and doesn't pay much attention to al Qaeda. Ok, I give you hindsight is 20/20 and he maybe couldn't have stopped 9/11. However, when 9/11 does happen what does our "strong leader" do. Sit frozen for 7 minutes reading a story to kids. Calm under fire or frozen in fear?

dude, he was in office for 9 months when the attacks happened. its not like he was Bill Clinton, being in office for 8 YEARS and doing nothing about al Qaeda and bin Laden!

To be sure I won't be voting for Bill Clinton in this election!

 

[Arsynic]

If Bush offered me what I was interested in, I would come to my conclusions based off of my personal viewpoints instead of bullsh*t accusations from left-wing fanatics calling him a "liar" and a "war-monger".

If Kerry offered me what I was interested in, I would come to my conclusions based off of my personal viewpoints instead of bullsh*t accusations from the radical right-wing fanatics calling him a "flip-flopper" and a "liar".

If you "don't understand" someone's viewpoint, the major cause may be your own personal bias/hate of one candidate as well as a poisonous information from the far left or far right.

 

[Arsynic]

Originally posted by: batchusa
Let me think...Before 9/11 Bush spends a bunch of time on vacation and doesn't pay much attention to al Qaeda. Ok, I give you hindsight is 20/20 and he maybe couldn't have stopped 9/11. However, when 9/11 does happen what does our "strong leader" do. Sit frozen for 7 minutes reading a story to kids. Calm under fire or frozen in fear?

To the contrary, you're not thinking. You are going on information you heard from biased sources. In reality, you have not a damn clue what W was spending most of his time doing. Prior to 9/11 Bush was just in office less than a year and it's the intelligence community that is responsible for "paying attention to Al Queda". It was an intelligence community that was the product of 8 years under the Clinton admin.

Hmmm...but you mention spending "most of his time on vacation" and "7 minutes frozen". Oh, no, not another Moorian Zombie. You must be basing your (mis)information on the far-left Hack-umentary "FearandHate 9/11". You were lied to. What would you have done if you were just told that your country was under attack and the next decision you made would decide the fate of the nation? Don't answer it becuase hindsight is always 20/20.

Now, supporters will say he held a nation steady. I don't deny that he did. For many, he was a source of support (and for others, he wasn't). But my point is that any number of politicans could have done the same as Bush did. Bush went on TV, said "We will find these terrorists...America is strong and great...We love freedom...They hate freedom...etc, etc". Don't tell me that John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John McCain etc could have not done that (especially in this age of speechwriters & media consultants). If you are voting for Bush solely on this reason, then ask yourself would you vote the same way if any of the above were in office during 9/11?

Why are you extrapolating based on some Utopian hypothetical situation? You're basing your decision on what you think a democratic president would have done in your perfect little hypothetical world where Democrats are demi gods who walk faultlessly.

They also point to the War in Afghanistan as an example of his leadership. Again, everyone knew we were going to attack Afghanistan. It doesn't take a "strong leader" to point to Afghanistan and say "bomb the #$(*# out of them". Also, one of Bush's main objectives before the war was to catch bin Laden. Umm......

I just want to take this time to highlight the ignorance in this statement...yeah...everyone knows that if 9/11 didn't happen, the Taliban would still be overthrown, Bin Laden would be reduced to hiding in caves, and the women of Afghanistan would have a bright and promising future. Yes, without being attacked, America would have eventually adopted a preemptive "hit-them-before-they-hit-us-strategy". The fact of the matter is that before 9/11, America didn't have enough balls to attack a country that could pose a future threat. It wasn't "American Policy". 9/11 changed that policy. If Clinton took Bin Laden when he had the chance, it's safe to say that the twin towers would probably still be gracing the New York sky line.

Iraq? Don't even go there. Sure we got rid of Saddam. But, how many lies did Bush and his administration tell the American people. We, the people who are funding this war. I think we all can agree that a "strong leader" certainly doesn't tell lies to his constituents to start a war.

Lies? If three seperate sets of intelligence tell you the same thing and you act on it, you're automatically a liar? If the police dept, fire department and the National Guard tell you that your house is on fire, you would need more proof? If it was found out that they screwed up, it's your fault for listening to them? Face it, Bush's intelligence was a product of 8 years of Clintonian incompetence. But he's such a good speaker and such a cool guy. I'm sure it's Bush's fault that Clinton gave him a car with bad brakes.

Leading us into war - a war which has taken the lives of almost one thousand US soliders and thousands of civilians, has cost 200 billion dollars, and has created more terrorists - based on deception. However, he is making the world safer...For Bush is a honourable man.

Yes, for we all know that America went to war without the approval of Congress and John Kerry. Oh wait a f*cking minute, didn't Kerry vote FOR the war??? Oh damn. If Congress didn't vote for the war then those soldiers would still be alive. So I guess Congress lied to us since they approved of war on the same grounds the president did! See how I conveniently passed the buck to Congress to further my agenda. I should make a movie about it called "Celcius: Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Many other immoral acts committed by Bush and his party: Disenfranchising thousands of voters in Florida, leaking a CIA agent's name, lying about the Iraq-9/11 connection...But hey, Bush is a honourable man.

Ignorance is a disease and sadly you're infected.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Arsynic

Originally posted by: batchusa
Let me think...Before 9/11 Bush spends a bunch of time on vacation and doesn't pay much attention to al Qaeda. Ok, I give you hindsight is 20/20 and he maybe couldn't have stopped 9/11. However, when 9/11 does happen what does our "strong leader" do. Sit frozen for 7 minutes reading a story to kids. Calm under fire or frozen in fear?

To the contrary, you're not thinking. You are going on information you heard from biased sources. In reality, you have not a damn clue what W was spending most of his time doing. Prior to 9/11 Bush was just in office less than a year and it's the intelligence community that is responsible for "paying attention to Al Queda". It was an intelligence community that was the product of 8 years under the Clinton admin.

Hmmm...but you mention spending "most of his time on vacation" and "7 minutes frozen". Oh, no, not another Moorian Zombie. You must be basing your (mis)information on the far-left Hack-umentary "FearandHate 9/11". You were lied to. What would you have done if you were just told that your country was under attack and the next decision you made would decide the fate of the nation? Don't answer it becuase hindsight is always 20/20.

Now, supporters will say he held a nation steady. I don't deny that he did. For many, he was a source of support (and for others, he wasn't). But my point is that any number of politicans could have done the same as Bush did. Bush went on TV, said "We will find these terrorists...America is strong and great...We love freedom...They hate freedom...etc, etc". Don't tell me that John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John McCain etc could have not done that (especially in this age of speechwriters & media consultants). If you are voting for Bush solely on this reason, then ask yourself would you vote the same way if any of the above were in office during 9/11?

Why are you extrapolating based on some Utopian hypothetical situation? You're basing your decision on what you think a democratic president would have done in your perfect little hypothetical world where Democrats are demi gods who walk faultlessly.

They also point to the War in Afghanistan as an example of his leadership. Again, everyone knew we were going to attack Afghanistan. It doesn't take a "strong leader" to point to Afghanistan and say "bomb the #$(*# out of them". Also, one of Bush's main objectives before the war was to catch bin Laden. Umm......

I just want to take this time to highlight the ignorance in this statement...yeah...everyone knows that if 9/11 didn't happen, the Taliban would still be overthrown, Bin Laden would be reduced to hiding in caves, and the women of Afghanistan would have a bright and promising future. Yes, without being attacked, America would have eventually adopted a preemptive "hit-them-before-they-hit-us-strategy". The fact of the matter is that before 9/11, America didn't have enough balls to attack a country that could pose a future threat. It wasn't "American Policy". 9/11 changed that policy. If Clinton took Bin Laden when he had the chance, it's safe to say that the twin towers would probably still be gracing the New York sky line.

Iraq? Don't even go there. Sure we got rid of Saddam. But, how many lies did Bush and his administration tell the American people. We, the people who are funding this war. I think we all can agree that a "strong leader" certainly doesn't tell lies to his constituents to start a war.

Lies? If three seperate sets of intelligence tell you the same thing and you act on it, you're automatically a liar? If the police dept, fire department and the National Guard tell you that your house is on fire, you would need more proof? If it was found out that they screwed up, it's your fault for listening to them? Face it, Bush's intelligence was a product of 8 years of Clintonian incompetence. But he's such a good speaker and such a cool guy. I'm sure it's Bush's fault that Clinton gave him a car with bad brakes.

Leading us into war - a war which has taken the lives of almost one thousand US soliders and thousands of civilians, has cost 200 billion dollars, and has created more terrorists - based on deception. However, he is making the world safer...For Bush is a honourable man.

Yes, for we all know that America went to war without the approval of Congress and John Kerry. Oh wait a f*cking minute, didn't Kerry vote FOR the war??? Oh damn. If Congress didn't vote for the war then those soldiers would still be alive. So I guess Congress lied to us since they approved of war on the same grounds the president did! See how I conveniently passed the buck to Congress to further my agenda. I should make a movie about it called "Celcius: Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Many other immoral acts committed by Bush and his party: Disenfranchising thousands of voters in Florida, leaking a CIA agent's name, lying about the Iraq-9/11 connection...But hey, Bush is a honourable man.

Ignorance is a disease and sadly you're infected.

Another sh*t slinging thread. Sigh.

C'mon guys, suck it up. Debate the issues and quit the childish sh*t slinging.

 

[OutHouse]

what exactly is Kerry and edwards plan for Iraq? They dont know, they dont have a clue.

I will vote for Bush, because i just dont like what Kerry stands for. Hell, i really dont know what he stands for. he keeps going back and forth on the issues. one day he says this, the next day he says something different.

and no I am not voting because he is a Republican. I vote for who I feel can serve the best. I have never voted along pary lines and never will.

Bush had not been a 100% perfect president. he has had some short commings, but what president hasnt? I still feel he is the better man for the job than kerry.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Arsynic
To the contrary, you're not thinking. You are going on information you heard from biased sources. In reality, you have not a damn clue what W was spending most of his time doing. Prior to 9/11 Bush was just in office less than a year and it's the intelligence community that is responsible for "paying attention to Al Queda". It was an intelligence community that was the product of 8 years under the Clinton admin.

Hmmm...but you mention spending "most of his time on vacation" and "7 minutes frozen". Oh, no, not another Moorian Zombie. You must be basing your (mis)information on the far-left Hack-umentary "FearandHate 9/11". You were lied to. What would you have done if you were just told that your country was under attack and the next decision you made would decide the fate of the nation? Don't answer it becuase hindsight is always 20/20.

I just want to take this time to highlight the ignorance in this statement...yeah...everyone knows that if 9/11 didn't happen, the Taliban would still be overthrown, Bin Laden would be reduced to hiding in caves, and the women of Afghanistan would have a bright and promising future. Yes, without being attacked, America would have eventually adopted a preemptive "hit-them-before-they-hit-us-strategy". The fact of the matter is that before 9/11, America didn't have enough balls to attack a country that could pose a future threat. It wasn't "American Policy". 9/11 changed that policy. If Clinton took Bin Laden when he had the chance, it's safe to say that the twin towers would probably still be gracing the New York sky line.

Yes, for we all know that America went to war without the approval of Congress and John Kerry. Oh wait a f*cking minute, didn't Kerry vote FOR the war??? Oh damn. If Congress didn't vote for the war then those soldiers would still be alive. So I guess Congress lied to us since they approved of war on the same grounds the president did! See how I conveniently passed the buck to Congress to further my agenda. I should make a movie about it called "Celcius: Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Actually, it's well document that Bush was "on vacation" more than any other President in history during the 8 months leading up to Sept. 11. This is relative as a President is never really on full "vacation" as they can be called back at any moment. However, you can't debate that he spent more time on vacation during that time than any other president, ever. This is a fact, it can be a bit misleading but it's a fact nonetheless. Oh yes, he never met with Richard Clarke in August who had a memo stating that Al Qaeda was planning on attacking buildings with planes. I'm not saying it would have stopped 9/11, and I'm not blaming him directly for it, but it's important to note that being on vacation for that long had consequences.

He did spend 7 minutes frozen. There is footage of it. You can interpret it any way you want (he was thinking, staying calm, whatever). It's not only in Fahrenheit 9/11, but that movie brought some of these FACTS to the mainstream.

You seem to have an interesting definition of fact because you claim that the statements I made above are from the far left film by Moore, when like i said, they are indeed facts. You then declare that we would have gone into Afghanistan. The truth is, the 9/11 commission reported that BOTH the Clinton and Bush administration were treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Bush had no plans to take out the Taliban whatsoever. I don't know how you can say that we would have gone to a pre-emptive strategy because it took 9/11 for that to actually happen.

Oh yes, you blame Clinton again. Well here's something for you to think about:
1998 - Embassy bombings in Africa kill scores of people
Response: Clinton bombs afghanistan and a "chemical weapons" factory in Syria
Reaction: republicans claim "Wag the dog" because this occured during the Lewinski scandal
You're telling me Republicans would have let Clinton attack Afghanistan pre-9/11. Are you crazy? They flipped at him for bombing terrorist camps with missiles, and they'd let him send in ground forces?

Ok, based on the information given to Congress, there was deemed cause by a majority to vote for authorization of force. This was in October 2002. We went to war March 2003. Many in congress expected wider international support, further weapons inspections to take place before an invasion, this didn't happen. They allowed the President to use force as a last resolve, but when he didn't, he took advantage of their votes. Plus, the White House had more intelligence during that time that lead to a few minor doubts about the WMD claims, none of this was released to Congress.

I want to see a logical response to this that proves me wrong.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Citrix
what exactly is Kerry and edwards plan for Iraq? They dont know, they dont have a clue.

I will vote for Bush, because i just dont like what Kerry stands for. Hell, i really dont know what he stands for. he keeps going back and forth on the issues. one day he says this, the next day he says something different.

and no I am not voting because he is a Republican. I vote for who I feel can serve the best. I have never voted along pary lines and never will.

Bush had not been a 100% perfect president. he has had some short commings, but what president hasnt? I still feel he is the better man for the job than kerry.

Here is a list of what Kerry stands for. I guess you haven't been watching the news of the DNC or highlights from the DNC to find out what Kerry stood for. Nor have you been to any website w/ a clear listing of his policies.
Here's a summary of his plan for Iraq:
He plans to bring in more international support to relieve some of the stress on our troops. He can do that because his credibility with the world still remains, while Bush's credibility has been shot.

Here are his stances on other issues:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.kerry.new.html
oh yes, here are bush's
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.bush.new.html

I like to be "fair and balanced"

Good luck making an informed decision
:beer:

 

[burnedout]

Interesting:

"In a Cali Today poll, 90 percent of Vietnamese Americans said they would vote for Bush, and only 10 percent said they would vote for Kerry."

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Citrix
what exactly is Kerry and edwards plan for Iraq? They dont know, they dont have a clue.

I will vote for Bush, because i just dont like what Kerry stands for. Hell, i really dont know what he stands for. he keeps going back and forth on the issues. one day he says this, the next day he says something different.

and no I am not voting because he is a Republican. I vote for who I feel can serve the best. I have never voted along pary lines and never will.

Bush had not been a 100% perfect president. he has had some short commings, but what president hasnt? I still feel he is the better man for the job than kerry.

Here is a list of what Kerry stands for. I guess you haven't been watching the news of the DNC or highlights from the DNC to find out what Kerry stood for. Nor have you been to any website w/ a clear listing of his policies.
Here's a summary of his plan for Iraq:
He plans to bring in more international support to relieve some of the stress on our troops. He can do that because his credibility with the world still remains, while Bush's credibility has been shot.

Here are his stances on other issues:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.kerry.new.html
oh yes, here are bush's
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.bush.new.html

I like to be "fair and balanced"

Good luck making an informed decision
:beer:

Yes i do watch the news, and yes i did watch the DNC. The DNC was nothing dude, it was the same ole' political speach said over and over and over again.

Kerry get international support in Iraq? Pluheessee The last time i checked there are over a dozen countries in Iraq. I guess you mean Kerry will get the French, Germans and Russians involved, or do you mean the UN?

damn you are gulliable, good luck in your "informed" decision.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Interesting:

"In a Cali Today poll, 90 percent of Vietnamese Americans said they would vote for Bush, and only 10 percent said they would vote for Kerry."

What is the percentage of them who are elegible to vote that actually vote? From my experiences with them in California (especially in Student Governement) they do not participate in the electoral process much at all.

 

[Arsynic]

Here's what John Kerry stands for:
That's about all we know.

 

[TravisT]

This 13 minute video clip of John Kerry flip-flopping on issues shows why I would want to vote for Bush:

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

Why would I want to vote for someone who can't determine what would be best for his country based on what he believes is the truth? He is willing to do what is best for his party, not his country. Sorry, I don't believe that way.