If you support Bush, could you explain why?

I'm not looking for a political flamewar here, although I'm betting this gets tossed into Fight Club by page 3, it's just that apparently over half the country thinks Bush is doing a good job and I just can't understand why. It's like those people who drink their own urine for the "health benefits", it's so totally foreign to my way of thinking that I can't even begin to comprehend what on earth is running through their heads.

So, going in with a blank slate and nothing to defend yourself against, can you tell me what it is about Bush that makes him worth supporting?

James

He's not Kerry.

Above many other things, I know what I'm getting. With Kerry, we'd have gone to war and then quit when it became "unpopular".

I like moderate right-wing biased Supreme Court judges, and I think it's fairly likely that that type of Justice will come from a Bush administration (given a lot of Democratic opposition). He's got a healthy disdain for international authority, which is good. He's far enough to the right on social issues that anything that I'm socially conservative about is unlikely to change soon.

Those are the only issues that I care about where I think Bush is stronger than Kerry - social stuff and aspects of foreign policy. On most topics, I think I'd be equally happy with either one in office.

He's simple and he's guilty of all of the scumbag-stuff people associate with Republicans, which is a major problem.

He's hardly an ideal candidate - I don't know who I'm going to vote for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

I like moderate right-wing biased Supreme Court judges, and I think it's fairly likely that that type of Justice will come from a Bush administration (given a lot of Democratic opposition). He's got a healthy disdain for international authority, which is good. He's far enough to the right on social issues that anything that I'm socially conservative about is unlikely to change soon.

Those are the only issues that I care about where I think Bush is stronger than Kerry - social stuff and aspects of foreign policy. On most topics, I think I'd be equally happy with either one in office.

He's simple and he's guilty of all of the scumbag-stuff people associate with Republicans, which is a major problem.

He's hardly an ideal candidate - I don't know who I'm going to vote for.

---

Nice answer.

Yoshi?

In my case it really is the lesser of two evils, But not by much at all, which is why i still consider myself undecided. I am a pro lifer, and while i really dont trust him to support my cause, given his record on the death penalty, i know he will put pro-life justices on the bench. beyond that, i can respect what he was attempting to do with the tax credits, and his perscription drug plan is a step in the right direction toward more affordable perscription drugs, but by no means an end result. Finally, if he is serious in his promise to invest in expanding the cable online infrastructure, then i will appreciate that. bush was not my first choice for a republican president, but he may be better than a guy who wouldnt be my first choice for a democratic presidential contender(that would be joe lieberman). Basicaly if Kerry can flesh out how he will stop the current trend of outsourcing while not sacrificing some of the reduced costs for government infrastructure that we have gained from it, i will consider that strongly. My vote also will be attracted to whichever cantidate will stop the outright graft that some of the powerful congressmen(including our own John Murtha) are pulling on the military, by forcing expensive and mostly useless projects on the military in exchange for fat derense contracts. Whoever will discipline military spending to be effective spending on things that will help us maintian our military superiority will get my strong support.

There is one issue on which I will be voting. Islamo-fascism is a threat to our civilization. Gay marriage, health care and taxes are silly and inconsequential when considering we are in a battle for our way of life.

Bush has proven he will be proactive and step on the neck of Islamo-fascism. His message has been one of clarity and consistency. It is also the only ethical response to those who would destroy the sole hope humanity has for a better life in this world. That message? Convert or die.

I'll try to put this more simply than it really is:

1. The world is safer today than it was when Clinton left office, thanks to increased defense and intelligence spending and the elimination of the Taliban and Saddam.

2. My taxes are lower today than they were when Clinton left office.

Those are the two major reason that I feel Bush's first four years were successful.

I could go on for day's about why I support him when the other choice is Kerry, but that is fruitless. The bottom line is that I would have picked McCain over Bush in 2000, but Bush is infinitely better than Gore or Kerry.

I take no sides and I'm no political person. But right now, everyone knows what Bush has done for the past 4 years. If Kerry was President, I guess that when people can choose which one they prefer, because right now, Kerry is just word of mouth, no action. Same with probably previous presidential candidates.

Just my 2¢. No flames please. I'm a noob when it comes to these stuff.

I don't like him because he chickened out of resolving the status issue in PR, again. He's also flip-flopped on education and inflated the government more than any other president in history (ironic, isn't it?).

I don't think he's necessarily a bad man, just not looking out for the average American. Yoshi's taxes may have gone down but benefits for most families here in PR have gone down the toilet. Every time a Republican gets into office, PR becomes the red-headed stepchild, yet they loved sending Cheney down here for a 20 minute fundraiser (he left with $300k) without even saying "hi" to the people here.

Kerry's definitely not the greatest guy in the world (I wanted Edwards) but anything is better than Bush.

He's brought terrorism to its knees and has made these orginizations bigger but far weaker. The war in Iraq served a few purposes, the most significant I see is bringing the terrorists to battle with the worlds strongest military rather then let them run around the United States. I feel that he softened an economic recession big time, which possibly could've been far worse. I agree with him on most morale issues and see him as a strong standing President. He may twist words and statements (which I'm not very big on) but all politicians do and that's something that's not really going to stop no matter who is in office.

I don't think Kerry has the balls to stand up to terrorism (although he might) and I generally disagree with his political party. Bush is a strong President with a lot of support in the government,, we may not be able to say that much about John Kerry. If Kerry ends up being elected he could be a great President but I'm not putting my money on it.

Quote:

---

He's brought terrorism to its knees and has made these orginizations bigger but far weaker.

---

That is true, i never thought of it that way. While terrorist acts are on the increase, the the level of destruction has decreased.

I don't see how that's an improvement. Losing a thousands lives in an hour or over the span of a few months is still the loss of a thousand lives.

Maybe it's because I'm an eternal pessimist, but I have this horrible, horrible feeling we're due for something big and bad, soon. Thus, I'm not too sure about Bush lessening the potency and size of terrorist organizations on the whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

Maybe it's because I'm an eternal pessimist, but I have this horrible, horrible feeling we're due for something big and bad, soon. Thus, I'm not too sure about Bush lessening the potency and size of terrorist organizations on the whole.

---

I think the big bad thing that will probably happen in the somewhat near future is a US/NATO based war against Asian Communists (mainly China) possibly over the oil reserves in the Middle East.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I think the big bad thing that will probably happen in the somewhat near future is a US/NATO based war against Asian Communists (mainly China) possibly over the oil reserves in the Middle East.

---

What? No way. China is the 21st century USSR. There will be a century-long pissing contest between us and them, but both sides are smart enough not to pull the trigger.

The USSR and US never went to war because of nuclear weapons, ICBM-intercepting technology is good enough (for the most part) to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles now and nuclear weapons have lost a lot of their usefullness as "don't fuck with me" weapons. Plus oil is becoming thin and something will have to break. I could be wrong and there's a good chance I am but there's also a good chance I'm not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

The USSR and US never went to war because of nuclear weapons, ICBM-intercepting technology is good enough (for the most part) to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles now and nuclear weapons have lost a lot of their usefullness as "don't fuck with me" weapons.

---

There has never been conclusive anti-ICBM technology developed. If you can show me any anti-missile system that's demonstrated even a 50% accuracy in test trials I'll be thoroughly impressed. We're still living in the age where a nuclear spark struck by human hands could very will end human civilization as we know it.

That's a good point, I was mostly speaking of a single nuclear weapon fired at a target that was expected to fire at. The military thinks AEGIS cruisers with updated targeting software could easily bring down a single ICBM. I don't think anyone has the balls to launch their entire strategic arsenal at a target at once. China's long-range nuclear capability could also be destroyed with a single tactical nuclear warhead dropped by a fighter-bomber. They have one or two ICBM subs but I'm sure we're pretty informed on where they are at all times and could destroy them easily.

If you'd like I'll try and look up some stuff on the AEGIS cruiser's anti-missile targeting, can't promise I'll find anything descive though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

Basicaly if Kerry can flesh out how he will stop the current trend of outsourcing while not sacrificing some of the reduced costs for government infrastructure that we have gained from it, i will consider that strongly.

---

I'd like to see this as well. Outsourcing chaps my ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

While terrorist acts are on the increase, the the level of destruction has decreased.

---

... did you hear what happened in Russia last week?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

1. The world is safer today than it was when Clinton left office, thanks to increased defense and intelligence spending and the elimination of the Taliban and Saddam.

---

9/11, the Madrid train bombing a few months back, and the recent terrorist attacks in Russia sort of point to the opposite. I don't feel a bit safter now than I did four years ago, but that's just me. I understand why others do feel safer.


It is nice to hear Bush supporters giving solid reasons for backing him. I will say this -- Bush comes across a lot better and more educated/informed when he's in 1-on-1 interviews than he does standing behind a podium. I've enjoyed listening to him being interviewed on the news over the past few months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kabuki

... did you hear what happened in Russia last week?


9/11, the Madrid train bombing a few months back, and the recent terrorist attacks in Russia sort of point to the opposite. I don't feel a bit safter now than I did four years ago, but that's just me. I understand why others do feel safer.


It is nice to hear Bush supporters giving solid reasons for backing him.

---

Just because the world is safer doesn't mean there's not going to be terrorists attacks. Russia has been experiencing terrorist attacks for years and so has Spain. Russia's enemies are probably not even involved with our enemies in the terrorist world so your point is completely moot. 9/11 is a poor example because that was the day that started this whole war. I've always felt completely safe against terrorist attack because the likelyhood of me being killed in a terrorist attack in the United States is probably 1 in a billion, literally (even before the "War on Terror"). If you don't feel safe you need to do something about that and just let it go.

I'm not a big fan of how he managed to privatise health care, plus the way he's allowed laws to pass through office without review has me convinced he wasn't the right guy for the job in the first place. He's not anywhere near as good as Clinton was, let alone his dad...

Besides I still can't belive people still supported him over the last couple of speeches he made, sounding like a broken record with your classic money lines, terrorists and WDMs. (God dammit, do us a favor and shut up already!)

4 more years? 4 more years of what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

I don't see how that's an improvement. Losing a thousands lives in an hour or over the span of a few months is still the loss of a thousand lives.

---

If you're referring to our casulties in Iraq by the 1000 you mention I don't really see that as a bad thing considering the dents we've put in terrorism. Soldiers are expendable, and I'm not saying that because I'm some non-caring nutcase, I'm saying that because it's true. It doesn't matter what President they fight for or which country they fight for, they are expendable assets at the hands of the government. I joined the Marine Corps with this knowledge and didn't mind a bit, the way I look at is that if you join the military (especially a combat unit) and expect to live through the whole thing or at least count on living through the whole thing you're making a mistake. I joined the Marine Corp expecting to die because of that action, there was a good chance that I would've never been killed but that's not really the point. The government has the military so it can send expendable assets to do it's work, otherwise we'd be sending political figures to war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

If you're referring to our casulties in Iraq by the 1000 you mention I don't really see that as a bad thing considering the dents we've put in terrorism. Soldiers are expendable, and I'm not saying that because I'm some non-caring nutcase, I'm saying that because it's true. It doesn't matter what President they fight for or which country they fight for, they are expendable assets at the hands of the government. I joined the Marine Corps with this knowledge and didn't mind a bit, the way I look at is that if you join the military (especially a combat unit) and expect to live through the whole thing or at least count on living through the whole thing you're making a mistake. I joined the Marine Corp expecting to die because of that action, there was a good chance that I would've never been killed but that's not really the point. The government has the military so it can send expendable assets to do it's work, otherwise we'd be sending political figures to war.

---

You know, I've never really thought of it that way, but that's a really good point. I just hope everyone that joins up realizes what they are getting into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

Soldiers are expendable, and I'm not saying that because I'm some non-caring nutcase, I'm saying that because it's true.

---

This is probably the single most insane thing I've ever heard someone tell me without being joking. Expendable? No. The military is a country's means by which to protect itself, not a stream of warm bodies to be sent wherever the bureaucracy decides to next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

It doesn't matter what President they fight for or which country they fight for, they are expendable assets at the hands of the government.

---

No, that's the wrong idea to perpetuate. We shouldn't come to the point where we're willing to casually dispose of human lives just because they signed up for four years of service defending their country. I'll admit that soldiers are often sent to war and in war people die, but it isn't something we should casually accept or look forward to. The idea is that one day we advance as a civilization beyond the need for armies, not get to the point where the loss of lives because of them is something we just shrug off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

The government has the military so it can send expendable assets to do it's work,

---

Then what would you say to conscripts or draftees both here and abroad? I know I sure as hell don't want to die for some lines on a map and a flag with some pretty colors on it. Do I become an 'expendable asset' simply because I was born on American soil? I choose not to accept that. Also, I'd say the death of American soldiers should only be in direct defense of America. You can justify getting rid of Saddam Hussien all you like, but you're not going to convince me (or any rational person not wearing an elephant or cross lapel) that he was a great and immediate threat to America. We're safer now out of necessity, we'd be just as safe if Gore were in the White House or he'd have been lynched. You're not going to find a President post-9/11 who is going to be 'soft' on terror. What you may find, and should find, is one willing to take a fresh approach at this new war, because the current model is clearly not working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

otherwise we'd be sending political figures to war.

---

Now THAT is a good idea.

That;s why a draft is very problematic. But what Gohron said is very much true. It sounds like you're implying that to go to war was a ludicrous idea, which I disagree with.

Secondly, it seems that the longer that this war goes on, the more people think it was going to be a quick solution. Maybe they were mislead, but it still isn't wise to think that way, regardless of who said what.

You join the military knowing you might die serving your country. As a soldier, it's your job to follow orders. As a commander, it's your job to take care of your men and not waste their lives. The thing is, if it comes down to it, the lives will be spent.

"It's what the young men are there for." is one of the most callous things anyone has ever said, but unfortunately it's also got a small bit of truth to it. What the real argument is over isn't about their deaths, it's about whether what they're dying for is worth their lives.

James

Anyone who joins up and isn't willing to die, or realizes he has a very good chance to die, is a fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

The USSR and US never went to war because of nuclear weapons, ICBM-intercepting technology is good enough (for the most part) to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles

---

You're so wrong it's not een funny. The most advanced anti-ICBM defence mechanisims we have (which we spend money, lots of money on) don't work UNLESS there is a tracking device on the ICBM itself. They have NEVER, I repeat, never, worked otherwise. Ballistic Missile Defence doesn't work. Not at all. Not right now at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

You're so wrong it's not een funny. The most advanced anti-ICBM defence mechanisims we have (which we spend money, lots of money on) don't work UNLESS there is a tracking device on the ICBM itself. They have NEVER, I repeat, never, worked otherwise. Ballistic Missile Defence doesn't work. Not at all. Not right now at least.

---

The Star Wars missile defence project was flawless. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Anyone who joins up and isn't willing to die, or realizes he has a very good chance to die, is a fool.

---

Not really. Your chances of dying while in the service are not that much greater than that of an everyday purpose. Most of the the time people in active service never see the front of war. Those joining the reserves and national guard have even less reason to worry for their lives. At least until, woops, they are going to have to die to get rid of a leader, who much like our men in service, killed a lot of innocent people.

I'm not responding to anything much of anyone says here due to it being an honest attempt on my part to understand how Bush supporters think. Just in case anyone was wondering why I'm not being more vocal in the thread I started.
James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

You're so wrong it's not een funny. The most advanced anti-ICBM defence mechanisims we have (which we spend money, lots of money on) don't work UNLESS there is a tracking device on the ICBM itself. They have NEVER, I repeat, never, worked otherwise. Ballistic Missile Defence doesn't work. Not at all. Not right now at least.

---

I actually mis-typed what I meant to type. We do not have any technology specifically designed for shooting down ICBMs but as I was saying in a different post, with upgrades to the original targeting software it is expected that an AEGIS cruiser would be able to shoot down an ICBM. The problem with this would be that an AEGIS cruiser would have to be docked in every major American city and these are big expensive ships that are meant to shoot down enemy planes and missiles directed at naval targets. I sort of looked into it before and it seemed reasonable. Clancy detailed this pretty extensively in one of his more recent novels (The Bear and the Dragon) when an AEGIS cruiser shot down a Chinese ICBM over Washington D.C. I know it's fiction but Clancy really knows his shit and usually has an inside look on military developments and includes them in most of his books.

If nuclear attack ever became a significant problem (if we went to or were close to going to war with a nuclear power) they could probably dump more money into this and get SAMs installed in all the primary nuclear targets in the US based on the AEGIS cruiser SAMs. The Soviet Union had SAMs installed in all of their major cities (to the best of my knowledge the US does not) and it was determined that they may have been able to shoot down ICBMs although it was realistically unknown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mman

Not really. Your chances of dying while in the service are not that much greater than that of an everyday purpose. Most of the the time people in active service never see the front of war. Those joining the reserves and national guard have even less reason to worry for their lives. At least until, woops, they are going to have to die to get rid of a leader, who much like our men in service, killed a lot of innocent people.

---

Regardless of the chances, it is part of the job description. Anyone who joins up just to be payed and thinks he is going to get a free ride because chances are he will never actually go fight, is a peace of shit. A person joins up because something out there means a whole lot to them, so much even they are willing to risk their life. Not for some bullshit easy way to get money.

The millitary kills, and in doing so, members of it get killed. Everyone should know this. Even the guy who cleans the floor. He is a part of the millitary and maybe, just maybe, the reality of that may come down on him.

There are a few board members here who are part of the armed forces. They are also great and upstanding people. I am willing to bet all of them were aware that by picking the job that they did, that they may have to kill someone, and may get killed by someone while doing said job before they went after their job. To say other wise is really an insult to their intelagence.

All I know is that BMD (Ballistic Missile Defence) as it is currently implented by the United States (and pushed forward by the Bush Administration) doesn't work. This from Chuck Spinney, who was in the Pentagon's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation and wrote "Defence Facts of Life." We spend money on them, and in all tests they haven't worked unless there were tracking beakons on the target missiles themselves.

To my knowledge, BMD, is not a reaility yet despite the fact that it is already implemented by the USA. Like a Lunar Lander that can't get to the Moon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

If you're referring to our casulties in Iraq by the 1000 you mention I don't really see that as a bad thing considering the dents we've put in terrorism. Soldiers are expendable, and I'm not saying that because I'm some non-caring nutcase, I'm saying that because it's true. It doesn't matter what President they fight for or which country they fight for, they are expendable assets at the hands of the government. I joined the Marine Corps with this knowledge and didn't mind a bit, the way I look at is that if you join the military (especially a combat unit) and expect to live through the whole thing or at least count on living through the whole thing you're making a mistake. I joined the Marine Corp expecting to die because of that action, there was a good chance that I would've never been killed but that's not really the point. The government has the military so it can send expendable assets to do it's work, otherwise we'd be sending political figures to war.

---

This is all that Marine brainwashing bullshit that they pump into impressionable young men/women. I am in the Air Force, and yes I will die for my country, but you had better have a DAMN good reason to send me somewhere. I am not, nor have I ever been expendable. There should never be a life lost in vain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kabuki

9/11, the Madrid train bombing a few months back, and the recent terrorist attacks in Russia sort of point to the opposite.

---

Ummmm, 9/11 was obviously before Bush began the war on terror. The bombing in Spain was done by Hammas (sp?), which we haven't had a chance to go after yet, and the Russian situation was done by Chechnyans. I never said Bush had gotten every terrorist group on hte planet, but if he got 1 out of 100, then the world is indeed safer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voltz

I'm not a big fan of how he managed to privatise health care

---

Yep. I hate having the best health care in the world. We should socialize it so that all progress stops.[/sarcasm]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

This is probably the single most insane thing I've ever heard someone tell me without being joking. Expendable? No. The military is a country's means by which to protect itself, not a stream of warm bodies to be sent wherever the bureaucracy decides to next.

---

It's a good thing a Republican is in office then, because Vietnam and Bosnia were clearly the latter. Thank Johnson and Clinton for using their warm bodies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voltz

I'm not a big fan of how he managed to privatise health care, plus the way he's allowed laws to pass through office without review has me convinced he wasn't the right guy for the job in the first place. He's not anywhere near as good as Clinton was, let alone his dad...

---

Please tell me what laws he allowed to "pass through office without review". Are you talking about, like, the Patriot Act (the same act that Kerry happened to vote for)?

No one likes change, there may be specific forms of change that people like, but on the whole change is hard for everyone, no one wants change in all things...
I take no sides because I can never truly trust these political faces, no matter how many speeches they give I will never know them, they will just actions and words with a physical embodiment, I can't trust what's going on in their minds and what they're doing that they aren't telling us(there's always something)...
I never feel like a president wants the job just for the sake of everyone else, I always see so much personal stake in it...
The real thing I can't trust is the parties they represent, irrelevant if what good intentions they may have, you cannot trust them to fully make these decisions when their influenced is swayed by the community they are allied with...
Though I take no political side, I do love Michael Moore movies, not for their political inclinations, but their style and presentation and humor in face of darkness...to sya the least, the man has got guts...however, when I speak about politics I generally save my MM comments for last simply because if I start with them few take me seriously...I was talking to someone the other day about politics and when I mentioned Moore, some of their friends didn't know who he was, so the person I was talking to paraphrased for them who Moore was: "The biggest(or most radical, can't remember) democrat ever."
This left me stunned for a moment. Moore the biggest Dem ever? That's a laugh, there are so many more extreme and dedicated Dems than Moore, and many of them without his sense of humor...
You see I repsect Moore as a director, but most people seem to see him as a democrat rabblerouser...which is kinda untrue and sad...
So my final thoughts are "Democracy is the scariest and most ingenious ideas ever devised simply because it guarantees no one will ever agree about anything...ever."

Anyone concerned with safety or security or anything like that is a delusional moron.

Anyone voting for Bush for any other reason is cool in my book. I don't care how you feel about gay marriage, abortion, taxes, the highways, or whatever: as long as you have a structured viewpoint about them you're on the level. Whether or not we agree on the many viewpoints doesn't matter.

I want a candidate who actively seeks to get rid of alimony. Unfortunately, politicians are too pussy to try and touch that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Ummmm, 9/11 was obviously before Bush began the war on terror. The bombing in Spain was done by Hammas (sp?), which we haven't had a chance to go after yet, and the Russian situation was done by Chechnyans. I never said Bush had gotten every terrorist group on hte planet, but if he got 1 out of 100, then the world is indeed safer.

---

Terrorist attacks are now being reported by Western media mostly because of how vogue terrorism is now. With this in mind, it's difficult to gauge exactly how much terrorism has decreased or increased worldwide. For example: Spain quivered under Basque seperatist terrorism during the early 90s, but I doubt anyone remembers that. There was also a time when you couldn't go the mailbox without getting blown up in Quebec, Canada, but how many people remember that?

Bringing up the Chechnyan (sp) bombing and the Hammas bombings in Spain as examples of proliferating terrorism doesn't really work.

So, I'm sorta agreeing with Yoshi... sorta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

I want a candidate who actively seeks to get rid of alimony. Unfortunately, politicians are too pussy to try and touch that one.

---

That's a really big issue for you, isn't it?

President Bush is an honest american that isn't afraid to stand up to terrorism, stupid tree huggers or homosexuals. If Kerry were in office we'd be having 9-11 bombings every month. He's such a patsy. And John Edwards makes me embarrased to be from the south. Their so gay! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linkin-ator

President Bush is an honest american that isn't afraid to stand up to terrorism, stupid tree huggers or homosexuals. If Kerry were in office we'd be having 9-11 bombings every month. He's such a patsy. And John Edwards makes me embarrased to be from the south. Their so gay! ;)

---

You're going to do well here.

I support Bush, "For Bush is an honourable man."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

That's a really big issue for you, isn't it?

---

Women's lib/feminism are big issues for me. Despite what they'll tell you, though, abortion isn't a women's issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

You're going to do well here.

---

I like him already.

Democrats ares such cry-babies, they just want to give the "minorities" all the power and not let the army have any.

And they want us to wait and get the UN's apporval just to take a piss. The US shouldn't take crap of nobody!They need us we don't need them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linkin-ator

Democrats ares such cry-babies, they just want to give the "minorities" all the power and not let the army have any.

And they want us to wait and get the UN's apporval just to take a piss. The US shouldn't take crap of nobody!They need us we don't need them!

---

Yeah, you're gonna do real well here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

Women's lib/feminism are big issues for me. Despite what they'll tell you, though, abortion isn't a women's issue.

---

That's a bold statement.

And a sexist ignorant one too, strange coincidence, neh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

Women's lib/feminism are big issues for me. Despite what they'll tell you, though, abortion isn't a women's issue.

---

Feminism can kiss my ass. We've had affirmative action for 30 years. Explain to me why there still aren't many women in upper management. Sooner or later people are going to have to come to the realization that not everyone is created equally.

Quote:

---

Yep. I hate having the best health care in the world. We should socialize it so that all progress stops.[/sarcasm]

---

I shudder to think of how badly I would have been destroyed by debt without a government health care system. It's easy to talk down on such a system when you're rich and don't have to worry about it.

Let me extend the question then.

I agree that Bush is very much a man of action.

That being said though, does it bother any of the people who support Bush here about the way he goes about those actions?

I mean when he went into Iraq, why didn't he just say, I don't like Saddam, we are going into Iraq? Why all this WMD bullshit?

I like men of action as well. I just don't like men of action who can't explain their actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

I shudder to think of how badly I would have been destroyed by debt without a government health care system. It's easy to talk down on such a system when you're rich and don't have to worry about it.

---

So true.

Private healthcare has ten times as many pitfalls as social healthcare. If you believe otherwise your swimming in a sea of propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

It's a good thing a Republican is in office then, because Vietnam and Bosnia were clearly the latter. Thank Johnson and Clinton for using their warm bodies.

---

Make sense of this for me please.


Also, here's something to think on.

"I'm not so sure that our military should be used for whats called nation-building. I don't think its the United States job to go around the world, telling other countries how it should be. Thats the act of an arrogant nation, and we will be resented." -George W. Bush 2000, in response to a question at a debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Sooner or later people are going to have to come to the realization that not everyone is created equally.

---

If we were talking about bone structure or other physical aspects then I'd agree that man and woman are created differently, however in the realm of intellect, reasoning, and comprehension you'll have to prove to me that there is a marked difference. Otherwise you're just embracing your own ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Sooner or later people are going to have to come to the realization that not everyone is created equally.

---

Wow you really are a republican.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

"I'm not so sure that our military should be used for whats called nation-building. I don't think its the United States job to go around the world, telling other countries how it should be. Thats the act of an arrogant nation, and we will be resented." -George W. Bush 2000, in response to a question at a debate.

---

Relevance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Feminism can kiss my ass. We've had affirmative action for 30 years. Explain to me why there still aren't many women in upper management. Sooner or later people are going to have to come to the realization that not everyone is created equally.

---

There are a lot of women in middle-management, about as many women as there are men. They're pretty good at middle management jobs. The sensitivity stuff helps.

Around 30, most women in jobs like this start to think about having kids, and when that happens, it kills their career. They take a year off from work to have the child, and whenever they do come back, they can't commit enough of their energy to their job to compete with guys.

I had a female boss, who was 40, I think, who worked 4 days a week - she demanded that she have every Wednesday off to spend with her children. She's comfortable in her job, and she's not going to lose it, but she's also never getting promoted.

99% of businesswomen end up being forced to stop doing the things that make them women if they want to get to the top levels of a company. A woman simply can't be a good mother to her children and still compete at the level of the male managers in your company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

It's a good thing a Republican is in office then, because Vietnam and Bosnia were clearly the latter. Thank Johnson and Clinton for using their warm bodies.

---

You have somewhat of a point with Vietnam (even though during that era Democrats were just as hawkish and conservative as Republicans are now), but Bosnia? Give me a break! How many casualities were there in Bosnia from enemy attack? The only one I can find that was enemy related was from a landmine, the rest were either suicides or accidents. Compare that with either the first Persian Gulf War or with the current war in Iraq and anyone can see that your comparison of G. W. Bush (who has gotten more than a thousand American soldiers killed) to Clinton (who did everything in his power to avoid American causalties AND got the job done) is not only unapplicable but down right laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Compare that with either the first Persian Gulf War or with the current war in Iraq and anyone can see that your comparison of G. W. Bush (who has gotten more than a thousand American soldiers killed) to Clinton (who did everything in his power to avoid American causalties AND got the job done) is not only unapplicable but down right laughable.

---

how did somalia go down again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

You have somewhat of a point with Vietnam (even though during that era Democrats were just as hawkish and conservative as Republicans are now), but Bosnia? Give me a break! How many casualities were there in Bosnia from enemy attack? The only one I can find that was enemy related was from a landmine, the rest were either suicides or accidents. Compare that with either the first Persian Gulf War or with the current war in Iraq and anyone can see that your comparison of G. W. Bush (who has gotten more than a thousand American soldiers killed) to Clinton (who did everything in his power to avoid American causalties AND got the job done) is not only unapplicable but down right laughable.

---

Gozen is right. Yoshi, Bosnia can't reasonably be compared to either Vietnam or Iraq, and Vietnam has far more in common in Iraq than it does with Bosnia.

Any conservative who supports the war in Iraq but did not support the war in Bosnia is either a hypocrite, a fool, or both.

Somalia was a firefight, not a war. It doesn't belong in a discussion of Iraq, Bosnia, or Vietnam.

Clinton can be criticized for not wanting to get his hands dirty in Bosnia, though. Clinton was so afraid of the effect that a few dead soldiers would have on his approval ratings that he ignored the recommendations of his generals and had the war conducted almost entirely by air. It kept US soldiers safe, but presumably lead to far more civilian casualties than were necessary (something most US papers didn't report on).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

*Question: Relevance?

---

*Statement: Contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Are you talking about, like, the Patriot Act (the same act that Kerry happened to vote for)?

---

Are you saying I support Kerry? :wtf:

And he did change his mind on allowing this to stay active, which tells me he's come to his senses a bit (not by much though).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

*Statement: Contradiction.

---

*Question: Shall we go kill some more meatbags, Master?

:lol:

So, are you all Yoshicans or Almacicrats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linkin-ator

Democrats ares such cry-babies, they just want to give the "minorities" all the power and not let the army have any.

And they want us to wait and get the UN's apporval just to take a piss. The US shouldn't take crap of nobody!They need us we don't need them!

---

Name's a takeoff on Linkin Park, title says "Best Not Front," avatar has a confederate flag, and he's 16.

Could he get any funnier?

Only if he were a bisexual furry, but that's been done to DEATH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

*Question: Shall we go kill some more meatbags, Master?

:lol:

---

I knew you'd pick up on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXA

So, are you all Yoshicans or Almacicrats?

---

I'm pretty liberal.

But if you put me in the same category as almaci, I might have to kill you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Clinton can be criticized for not wanting to get his hands dirty in Bosnia, though. Clinton was so afraid of the effect that a few dead soldiers would have on his approval ratings that he ignored the recommendations of his generals and had the war conducted almost entirely by air. It kept US soldiers safe, but presumably lead to far more civilian casualties than were necessary (something most US papers didn't report on).

---

This is exactly what I meant. The soldiers that were sent were hung out to dry, like Kerry would have liked to have done to those in Iraq now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXA

So, are you all Yoshicans or Almacicrats?

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That fucking rules.

Hey, liberals, are you well represented by our resident Muslim wacko (department of redundancy department)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animegirl20

This is all that Marine brainwashing bullshit that they pump into impressionable young men/women. I am in the Air Force, and yes I will die for my country, but you had better have a DAMN good reason to send me somewhere. I am not, nor have I ever been expendable. There should never be a life lost in vain.

---

The government isn't going to kill off soldiers in vain but they may send soldiers to die for a purpose. Look at it this way, say a sizable US force is in a battle with another sizable enemy force. The US has a few divisions of mechanized infantry and a few divisions of heavy armor but all the armored divisions are not in a convenient place to engage the enemy armor so the mechanized infantry divisions are sent to engage the enemy and get them to shift their forces and the heavy armor units engage them on their flank and the enemy is completely decimated. During this action it was known that the mechanized infantry units were going to suffer several thousand casulties but the job was done. It's hard to send men to their deaths but a good commander would've sent the mechanized infantry in to win the battle (depending on the overall situation, I'll leave that to your imagination).

Concerning Marine Corp bullshit, that really hasn't influenced my look on the military but did influence my look on the Marines. It is made perfectly clear to us when we arrive that we are there to learn how to kill as much people as they need us to and that we may have to die doing it. If you don't let the brainwashing set in you're not going to be able to make it through recruit training and that's pretty much all there is to it. I guess that's why you joined the Air Force and I joined (and will be re-joining) the Marines under an Infantry MOS :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

how did somalia go down again?

---

Hmmm, let me see. An Army unit was sent into a city filled with hostile people to capture two important people in the warlords circle. Over the course of the day two American helicopters were brought down and the US suffered 18 deaths but killed thousands of Somoli's. Not too long before the operation started the Clinton Administration disallowed the use of the AC-130 gunship that was in the area for support. The AC-130 would've given the US huge amounts of supremacy that day and would've probably lessened our wounds AND the Somoli wounds. It would've allowed US forces to initiate a quick and easy mission. The media was allowed to play off the situation as an embarresment to US forces and Clinton would not allow any further operations (we could've gotten the warlord pretty damned easily) so basically 18 American soldiers and 1,000-10,000 died for absolutely NO reason whatsoever! Tie this in with US military stuff being sold to the Chinese (including one of our rockets that crashed there that the Chinese used to get their ICBM technology to be reliable) and North Koreans and then the situation in Iraq in 1998 where we pounded the hell out of Iraq with an air campaign in which super-accurate laser guided bombs landed in civilian areas (although we were supposed to be targeting government buildings). Man, our US-hating globalist President was a great guy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Explain to me why there still aren't many women in upper management.

---

Women have babies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

There are a lot of women in middle-management, about as many women as there are men. They're pretty good at middle management jobs. The sensitivity stuff helps.

---

If they devote themselves, they're just as good. But most women are just looking to ride along until Prince Charming comes and takes care of them.

Quote:

---

Around 30, most women in jobs like this start to think about having kids, and when that happens, it kills their career. They take a year off from work to have the child, and whenever they do come back, they can't commit enough of their energy to their job to compete with guys.

---

On top of that, who picks up the slack when she's on paid maternity leave, usually for no extra pay?

Quote:

---

I had a female boss, who was 40, I think, who worked 4 days a week - she demanded that she have every Wednesday off to spend with her children. She's comfortable in her job, and she's not going to lose it, but she's also never getting promoted.

---

Would you keep her employed? I certainly wouldn't. But then, that would be discrimination since she's a woman. Try being a man, walking into work and demanding a 4 day work week. YOU'RE FIRED. Feminism my ass - it's called, "I want to be MORE equal. I want my cake and I want to eat it to, and I want YOU to pay for it." I shouldn't have brought this up.

Quote:

---

A woman simply can't be a good mother to her children and still compete at the level of the male managers in your company.

---

Nobody can be a good parent, men or women, if they don't have time to spend with their kids. That's why people shouldn't have kids so young, and especially when they don't have a lot of money to support them. It comes down to what's more important - your career or having a family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaiDeiTheBlade

And a sexist ignorant one too, strange coincidence, neh?

---

I like that tone. I felt that way when I was younger, too. Strange that I'm still a dirty liberal that supports abortion and gay marriage. Women have the upper hand in this country, and if you say anything contrary or in support of men (ie: alimony should be eliminated), you get told you're a sexist by people who were raised only by a woman. Isn't that a little biased?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

So, going in with a blank slate and nothing to defend yourself against, can you tell me what it is about Bush that makes him worth supporting?

---

I often ask myself the same question. The best answer can be found by inverting my issues. You should support Bush if you believe that:

1) tax cuts plus increased government spending as a means to put more money into the hands of today's rich outweighs the burden of high interest on future generations

2) oil is a nearly infinite resource for which there is no need for energy conservation except for a meager increase of 1.6 mpg in fuel efficiency standards

3) the United States' status as the world's strongest nation gives our government the mandate to wage unilateral preemptive war under false pretenses

4) the United States was founded as a Christian nation and therefore should promote Christianity

Quote:

---

3) the United States' status as the world's strongest nation gives our government the mandate to wage unilateral preemptive war under false pretenses

---

By unilateral, I assume you mean, "not approved by the UN", in which case, yes, I would rather have a President who doesnt feel the need to get UN approval to scratch his ass.

Because the world shouldnt have a say in what we do to the world, the United States should have the only say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave is ok

Because the world shouldnt have a say in what we do to the world, the United States should have the only say.

---

No... but the UN is hardly an adequate facilitator. Every country has its own profits, its own motives, its own secrets, its own best interests in mind, and to acquiesce to a squabbling bureacracy filled with people who do not have your best interests in mind is madness.

Bottom line, every country on Earth is looking out for themselves, and we'd be stupid to give any control to a group of countries which are not looking out for the US.

Quote:

---

Bottom line, every country on Earth is looking out for themselves, and we'd be stupid to give any control to a group of countries which are not looking out for the US.

---

A great man once said, "Love your enemy."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

... Every country has its own profits, its own motives, its own secrets, its own best interests in mind, and to acquiesce to a squabbling bureacracy filled with people who do not have your best interests in mind is madness.

Bottom line, every country on Earth is looking out for themselves, and we'd be stupid to give any control to a group of countries which are not looking out for the US.

---

And you think the Bush administration has YOUR best interests in mind? :lol:

I dunno, maybe you are a millionaire or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

There is one issue on which I will be voting. Islamo-fascism is a threat to our civilization. Gay marriage, health care and taxes are silly and inconsequential when considering we are in a battle for our way of life.

Bush has proven he will be proactive and step on the neck of Islamo-fascism. His message has been one of clarity and consistency. It is also the only ethical response to those who would destroy the sole hope humanity has for a better life in this world. That message? Convert or die.

---

I didn't know Michael Savage posted on the TNL boards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JefmcC

And you think the Bush administration has YOUR best interests in mind? :lol:

I dunno, maybe you are a millionaire or something.

---

They do not care about Diffusionx, the singular person. However, they care about the aggregate he represents, the aspiring professional college-educated graduated make good rank and file Republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedCoKid

A great man once said, "Love your enemy."

---

Zack De La Rocha once said, "Know your enemy."

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigana

They do not care about Diffusionx, the singular person. However, they care about the aggregate he represents, the aspiring professional college-educated graduated make good rank and file Republicans.

---

And Dems too. Don't forget that Kerry also went to Yale. And I would argue that he did a bit better than W. Bush at school.

I support him because hes NOT a flip-flopin muslim lovin amarican hatin commie like karry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BURN007

I support him because hes NOT a flip-flopin muslim lovin amarican hatin commie like karry.

---

Good thing joke accounts opinions dont matter.

if it made you laugh then this joke account is working just fine.

Quote:

---

I like that tone. I felt that way when I was younger, too. Strange that I'm still a dirty liberal that supports abortion and gay marriage. Women have the upper hand in this country, and if you say anything contrary or in support of men (ie: alimony should be eliminated), you get told you're a sexist by people who were raised only by a woman. Isn't that a little biased?

---

Not when you're saying a person who has to give birth and get attached to a creature she will most likely care for for the rest of her life has no say in whether she can keep it. It's not to say the man has no say, but the man can and often will walk out, leaving this person carrying a person alone...in any case, I fully support abortion, and if you're trying to squeeze back rights and power into male hands, well, we've got more than you give us credit for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

how did somalia go down again?

---

About as well as Panama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

If they devote themselves, they're just as good. But most women are just looking to ride along until Prince Charming comes and takes care of them.

---

Not true. Most women like the idea of having a Prince Charming, but a significant number of them don't them depend on having one. They're not all out for your money.

Quote:

---

On top of that, who picks up the slack when she's on paid maternity leave, usually for no extra pay?

---

The state. The state wants the type of women who get paid maternity leave to make babies. It makes sense to me.

Quote:

---

Would you keep her employed? I certainly wouldn't. But then, that would be discrimination since she's a woman. Try being a man, walking into work and demanding a 4 day work week. YOU'RE FIRED. Feminism my ass - it's called, "I want to be MORE equal. I want my cake and I want to eat it to, and I want YOU to pay for it." I shouldn't have brought this up.

---

Ah, bullshit. She wasn't going to double the company's worth or anything, but she was a solid manager who kept things running, and I think it wise that the company accomodated a request like hers - and did so without being forced to by the state, without having to accommodate a similar request every time they were asked, so on.

Quote:

---

Nobody can be a good parent, men or women, if they don't have time to spend with their kids. That's why people shouldn't have kids so young, and especially when they don't have a lot of money to support them. It comes down to what's more important - your career or having a family.

---

One career-minded parent and one family-minded parent is usually enough to create a good family.

Quote:

---

Women have the upper hand in this country, and if you say anything contrary or in support of men (ie: alimony should be eliminated), you get told you're a sexist by people who were raised only by a woman. Isn't that a little biased?

---

That's not true, man. Women will never actually have the upper hand, because having children will become the focus of most of their lives - and women tend to like it that way. That's what the past 10 years have proven - feminism gave women the chance to act and live like men for their entire lives, and a lot of them, maybe most of them, are rejecting it in favor of striking a balance between being liberated and being women.

id vote for nader...but my vote doesnt count becuase everyone in texas is voting for bush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

But if you put me in the same category as almaci, I might have to kill you.

---

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Above many other things, I know what I'm getting.

---

I'd rather take my chances with the guy who might not be a fuck up than with the guy who I know is a fuck up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

2. My taxes are lower today than they were when Clinton left office.

---

Of course when you're 70 and you need the money you're fucked, but hey, instant gratification always wins the votes.

Mortgaging the country up to its ears is not a viable way to lower taxes. Don't make it sound like free money.

The only thing Bush really did that I liked was his little mars escapade.

To me, he really seems like Curious George and Cheney is the Man in the Yellow Hat.

You're the man tin the yellow hat!

George Bush is awesome! He dosen't take shit off nobody. If you were man enough to go into the ring with him, he'd take you down in like two seconds!

And you'd go home crying like this little tittie baby you are!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Not true. Most women like the idea of having a Prince Charming, but a significant number of them don't them depend on having one. They're not all out for your money.

---

Right, but I think there are very few of those. Note the key words there.

Quote:

---

Ah, bullshit. She wasn't going to double the company's worth or anything, but she was a solid manager who kept things running, and I think it wise that the company accomodated a request like hers - and did so without being forced to by the state, without having to accommodate a similar request every time they were asked, so on.

---

You had made it sound like she was in an important role. But seriously, try going in and demanding a day off every week - mental health, physical therapy, whatever. Who did her work when she was gone? Was that why you got promoted so quickly? ;)

Quote:

---

One career-minded parent and one family-minded parent is usually enough to create a good family.

---

Yeah, probably. I never had that, since my mom was home before we got back from school and my dad got back at five-ish.

Quote:

---

That's what the past 10 years have proven - feminism gave women the chance to act and live like men for their entire lives, and a lot of them, maybe most of them, are rejecting it in favor of striking a balance between being liberated and being women.

---

Hey, if they are rejecting feminism, all the better. I hope they realize that men want real women, not bitches who "don't need a man."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linkin-ator

George Bush is awesome! He dosen't take shit off nobody. If you were man enough to go into the ring with him, he'd take you down in like two seconds!

---

I personally saw George parachute down from a B-52 and kill a dozen Cong with his bare hands!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Of course when you're 70 and you need the money you're fucked, but hey, instant gratification always wins the votes.

---

:lol: Sorry, I can manage my money better than the government, so I will quite comfortable when I am 70, even if Social Security has been bankrupt for 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

I personally saw George parachute down from a B-52 and kill a dozen Cong with his bare hands!

---

Yeah I know! Pops says if hed been president then, Bosnia would've lasted like four days and we could've wiped out all the Serbs with just fifty men and like two tanks!

The Democrats are such retarded softies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linkin-ator

The Democrats are such retaerted softies!

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

Right, but I think there are very few of those. Note the key words there.



You had made it sound like she was in an important role. But seriously, try going in and demanding a day off every week - mental health, physical therapy, whatever. Who did her work when she was gone? Was that why you got promoted so quickly? ;)

---

People like her are good at the stuff I'm not good at - the managerial equivalent of 'tending the farm'. I sat around and thought and fixed problems, she was around to make sure things looked good and things stayed in order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

People like her are good at the stuff I'm not good at - the managerial equivalent of 'tending the farm'. I sat around and thought and fixed problems, she was around to make sure things looked good and things stayed in order.

---

So what you're saying is that you did 90% of her job for her. Did she make good sammidges? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

People like her are good at the stuff I'm not good at - the managerial equivalent of 'tending the farm'. I sat around and thought and fixed problems, she was around to make sure things looked good and things stayed in order.

---

Symbolism over substance? Sounds like 90% of the woman managers I have worked with.

She filled an important role, and I've worked with other women who were much more complete managers than she was. Women are 99% as capable as men at jobs like this if they want to be - the fact is, oftentimes they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Women are 99% as capable as men at jobs like this if they want to be.

---

Awesome. So if it weren't for affirmative action bullshit, they should never be hired, because they are less qualified. There's a shocker.

I'm sorry but women aren't equal. They're smaller, weaker and too damn fussy! Except for my mom, I wouldn't trust any woman manager!

That's what I like about Bush.

You don't see Laura or Barbra trying to run the country, no they know where thier place is: in the kitchen, or on the poarch - barefoot and ready with a pitcher of sweet tea!