|
|
Post by malachi on Mar 6, 2004 10:30:24 GMT -5
understand where you all are coming from. No bashing, no rudeness. I just honestly can't think of anything positive this administration has done (besides oust Sadaam -- even if we're there under false pretenses that facet of the current outcome is a plus). The economy, the environment, outsourcing jobs, adding discrimination to our founding document, hindering the 9/11 inquiry (why won't anyone testify under oath?), falsifying documents (Health Disparities report, lower Manhattan air quality), enormous national debt, the hatred the rest of the world holds for us...the list continues.
I believe that all Americans -- left or right, religious or secular -- must realize that we've taken a dangerous path these past four years. So please, somebody explain to me why you support the current administration. I'm looking for a fair, open debate, not bashing and moral hate.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 6, 2004 13:07:10 GMT -5
I think President Bush has negatives, although I suspect the things I'm disjointed in him for are different from yours. I wish he would force Frist to either grow a set or step down so he can stop senate Democrats unconstitutional mission to block his judicial nominees. I also wish he would force congress to quit spending so much money socially. I don't I think I should be paying for Johnny Carson's prescriptions. The economy is growing, last months retail sales set records, the markets are strong....I don't think you can beat the economy drum. Our enemies are hoping there are more of you than of me. Kerry has already got a thumbs-up from North Korea. The middle east and some of the Euro socialist nations are rooting for your candidate. The communist party is endorsing him. He has the most liberal voting record of any member of the senate. His promise to raise taxes is troubling, but not as much as his assertion that we should sell out our national sovereignty to the UN. I'm not going to vote with the terrorists. They are rooting for Kerry all the way. To sum up, what choice do I have? I can vote for Bush or a treasonous p.o.s. ![]() www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/06/gore.bush.01/link.john.kerry.ap.jpg[/img] YOU RRAAAAANNNNNNGGGGG Or this. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 6, 2004 13:22:33 GMT -5
I'm a Pat Buchannan conservative, and I have to say I cringe everytime I see that picture of Bush pretending he was in the real military like my family, but Kerry's worse so I'm forced (if I was old enough) to vote for Bush, even though he's weak on everything I believe in, from protecting our borders to not easing up on spending on social programs.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 6, 2004 14:08:40 GMT -5
I would like to see more done to secure the borders and cut spending. I have no illusions about that communist Kerry doing it. I find it humorous that liberals blame Bush for out sourcing. Clinton signed NAFTA. What is the liberal solution? Raise taxes on big business? Yeah, that'll work!  Ian, Your post is a slap in the fact to those that serve and serve us proud in the Guard! www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/main101.asp |
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 6, 2004 14:27:28 GMT -5
Please. Bush wasn't in the real military. I agree that many reservists are over in Iraq right now and I admire them for that. The reserves back in the late 60's to 70's though was what rich kids did so they didn't have to fight (like my dad) but also didn't have to flee. Bush slapped all of those who served in the real military in the face by landing on that carrier. I just think it's hipocritical for the liberals to denonce Bush's service because it was more than most of them did.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 6, 2004 14:40:48 GMT -5
I don't think it would have been hypocritical no matter what his military background and even if he had not served at all. He is the C.I.C. now. Clinton visited carriers and he went and gave aid and comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam era.
He is their President and the Commander In Chief of the military.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 6, 2004 15:17:29 GMT -5
Listen I wasn't a fan of Clinton either. There were many ways bush could have gone about it. He could have taken a helecopter out. There was no pressing ned for him to be out there at all, let alone take a landing like that. You can't deny that the entire thing was a PO.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 6, 2004 15:32:19 GMT -5
You mean PR? Probably, but what president has not engaged in public relations stunts? I think that the service members that he visited were delighted to have him aboard, and that's what matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Mar 6, 2004 16:11:31 GMT -5
Hah. Yeah. And Clinton handing the North Koreans nuclear technology on a silver platter was somehow a great international service?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 6, 2004 16:43:56 GMT -5
No. I ment a Photo Op. Before everyone lables me a Clinton lover, I'M DON'T LIKE BUSH BECAUSE HE'S TOO LIBERAL.  You're right MO, presidents do engage in PR, but Bush's term has been run by PR. And now notice how he throws the conservatives a bone before the election by bringing up this Amendment. Just because Clinton was a scumbag and a disgrace to this country doesn't exclude Bush from doing some of the same things. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 6, 2004 17:01:00 GMT -5
I'm not in lock step with everything he has done. Frankly, he is not conservative enough for my tastes. I just don't see the point in running him down in a thread such as this one if you agree he is the better candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 6, 2004 17:04:51 GMT -5
Well I don't see the point in showing a shameless Photo Op to show he is the better candidate.  |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 6, 2004 17:19:07 GMT -5
I don't think there was anything wrong with the landing. Bite me. If a photo op gets you that hot, there will never be a sitting president that you will like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 6, 2004 17:42:49 GMT -5
I had forgotten about the landing. I was disagreeing with your viewpoint and was then, I believed, labled liberal.  |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 6, 2004 17:56:01 GMT -5
I didn't label you anything. Paranoia will destroy ya! |
|
You're right MO, presidents do engage in PR, but Bush's term has been run by PR. And now notice how he throws the conservatives a bone before the election by bringing up this Amendment. Just because Clinton was a scumbag and a disgrace to this country doesn't exclude Bush from doing some of the same things.
