Details

Closed to new replies
September 7, 2004
Link

Statistics

Replies: 411

Why should i vote for bush

:iconarrrg-pirates:
Arrrg-Pirates Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2004
I want someone to rationally argue with me as to why George Bush > John Kerry, because i can never understand why people like bush and his polocies.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icondigimancer:
digimancer Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2004
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

September 2, 2004, Updated
Download Poster

From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

26. 527s

Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]

…Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]

27. Medical Records

Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect…the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]

…Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department…asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]

28. Timelines For Dictators

Bush sets timeline for Saddam: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]

…Bush says he's against timelines: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]

29. The Great Lakes

Bush wants to divert great lakes: "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'– [AP, 7/19/01]

Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]

30. Winning The War On Terror

Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

…Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

…Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]
Reply
:iconkarmaisit:
karmaisit Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2004
if you are pro-life and you support less government involvement you should vote for bush. also if you felt threatened by saddam and terrorism in general.

People tend to like bush because they feel that he is a moral person. everyone knows that bush has strong fundamental beliefs and he sticks to them no matter what. this can be good and bad. he's also a christian which seems to confer instant goodness on him. Bush has "clear" positions on the issues and his leadership after 9/11 was commendable. to be honest. outside of foreign policy. he hasn't done anything commendable in the domestic sphere.
Reply
:iconsubterfuge:
subterfuge Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2004   Photographer
Reply
:iconjay-hawkeye:
Jay-Hawkeye Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2004
I truely hope that no-one votes for Kerry because of his stance on the war on Saddam's Iraq, doing that probibly cause an economic desaster (and desasters else where)

Everyone should vote on domestic issues, not forgin polocy!

Personally I don't like Bush, he has ripped up the Keoto treaty, but he has given terrorisum and more reacently, fascisum (Saddam Hussain) a blody nose.
I do have questions about Quatamano bay and the aftermath of the war on Saddam's Iraq.

But personally I wouldn't vote Kerry manly due to the fact that he is Spineless, he initially supported the war on Saddam's Iraq, now he is opposed to it, he is treating this as a political football, plus I have questions about his ways on his more softer ways of handeling terrorists, so if anyone sees Kerry as the beacon of light, take a closer look and you may see darkness.

Now I am not saying Bush is an angel, he is far from being an Angel, but nore is he the Devil.
Reply
:iconworldhurricane:
worldhurricane Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2004
i've tried asking this question of people before...
they either give me a really ridiculous and pretty much worthless answer, or they avoid all of his weaknesses. the latter isn't unreasonable, but i find that his few strengths are heavily outweighed by his weaknesses. his one big strength is faith-based morality. he's a big christian (a follower of tim lahaye) and a lot of people like that, especially in the 'bible belt' - where i'm from.

the RNC website is pretty much useless for honest and positive information about bush ( they lean more toward foolishly optimistic ), as is Fox news. it's rare that you find a really honest news source. i get my news from AP and Reuters (which is where most news agencies get theirs, beyond individual investigative reporting). The Christian Science Monitor is also a good publication, and is remarkably objective despite it's title.

one of the worst reasons to vote kerry/edwards is to get rid of bush/cheney, but i guess it's a reason. it kind of depends on how much you care about the rest of the world. from campaign rhetoric, i get the strong impress that neither candidate knows how to get to the root of terrorism, because they don't fully understand it. if you want to understand terrorism, talk to the NRA, the PA, the people in east timor, or the Zapatistas.

domestically, the candidates are pretty similar. check out kerry's website for his plan, and check out bush's website for his. don't immediately believe everything they say, but compare it to what we know about the recent past. and really take everything that's said about flip-flopping with a big grain of salt, because i've looked up a couple of those 'tax' bills listed on the GOP website, and several of them have little to do with taxes. also, acts of legislation are very large and saying that someone is entirely against a bill isn't necessarily true. politicians quibble about wording of subsections all the time.

this didn't really present an argument for bush, but i really think you should stay away from arguments for or against anything. by nature they will be slanted and omit important information all across the board. listening to two arguments at opposite extremes will rarely be very informative. they just tend to polarize an audience.
Reply
:iconseednumb:
seednumb Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2004
I dont understand why either, I mean, he so far has run this country like he runs his companies and you know what happened to his companies? They went into the ground because of mismanagement. The think is that most Christians are voting for Bush because they believe some type of "he was elected by god", "god wants him in office". You might think that I'm crazy for saying that but I work with Christians and they swear that he was put in office by god. I asked them though "if god put him in office why would he have to lie to get into office"? They couldnt tell me that and they said "lets talk about soemthing else now", they obviously seen the contradiction. I think that its risky to vote for someone because he is a Christian and not voting for someone who is endangering the lives of all americans and running this country into the ground. I will tell you what, if he gets another four years, we are going to need god because everything is really going to go to shit in the last four years. We think what he has done so far is bad he had nothing to lose this last term, this is when the real bad shit comes out and he pushes for it.
Reply
:icondigimancer:
digimancer Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2004
Why to vote for Bush?

Iran endorses Bush for president! Thats got to count for something!
[link]
Reply
:iconseednumb:
seednumb Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2004
Thats great at the bottom where someone from the Bush administration says that Iran needs to stop their programs. Maybe they like this administration more because they talk about countries and how they should stop developing nukes but do nothing about it and turn around and attack countries that have no weapons.
Reply
:iconthegrimwombat:
thegrimwombat Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2004
I don't particularly like either.

As soon as I turn eighteen, I'm joining the Libertarian party. They seem to agree best with my philosophies on personal responsibility, taxes, welfare, gun control, drugs, gay marriage, and a multitude of other things as well.

I don't believe that millions of Americans can be grouped into two parties. People just aren't that way. I :heart: the third party candidates... they'll probably never make it into the White House, but I respect them for trying to change things.
Reply
:iconarrrg-pirates:
Arrrg-Pirates Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2004
Sorry for my ignorance, but are Libertarians right or Left wing?
Reply
:iconthegrimwombat:
thegrimwombat Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2004
It's hard to say, really. They support the right to own guns, which is traditionally right-wing, but they support the right to use drugs, which is left-wing. They support personal responsibility, and as such, getting rid of the welfare system, which could be considered right-wing, but they're for complete freedom of speech, which is more "traditionally" left-wing...

So to answer your question, I have no idea where they'd fit on the political spectrum. Somewhere in the middle, I suppose.
Reply
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2004
A. Reasons not to vote for John Kerry

1- Had a very very poor attendance record as a Senator in 2003 (28% attendance) and 2004 (20%). In fact, by the ethical codes of the Senate payroll he shouldn't have even cashed his paychecks as a Senator that year. But he did.
2- Refuses to fill out an National Political Awareness Test, which would illustrate where he stands as a Political entity. This shows a refusal to demonstrate what it is that HE believes in. Not just what he's working towards. - [link]
3- Supports Pro-Choice, however he cites justifying example that would be covered under Pro-Life legislation anyways. Has voted Pro-Choice 100% of the time
4- Promotes socialized medicine, but cites examples from countries that are currently trying to revert back to privatized medicine due to problems in quality of healthcare services provided in socialized system
5- Has written books on his theories of international policy which basically suggest that the US should be demilitarized and what remaining forces it have should be subordinate to the UN. Such an arraingement works against current Constitutional Amendments.
6- Testified after serving in the military concerning "atrocities" he saw while in service. If his statements are factual, by military law he is equally guilty as those that he claims commited such acts since he did not report them at the alledged time (while serving) to his commanding officer or anyone in an authority to take action. If his statements are false, he is guilty of purgory.

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down." -- John Kerry, April 18, 1971

"(Kerry) encouraged our enemies to rebuild and hang on when they were near defeat, as they were after the Tet offensive in 1968. Did you know our POWs had John Kerry's words quoted to them by their interrogators?" -- Retired U.S. Navy SEAL captain with service in Vietnam, John Bailey

"John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions." -- John O'Neil in May, 2004
7- He has received medals for military action (three purple hearts, a silver star, and a bronze star), but the one of the three purple hearts was never signed off on by his commanding officer and is therefore of questionable validity.
8- He has contradicted himself (i.e. LIED) concerning his own past and credibility on several occasions. Usually involving his actions in the 70s. - [link]
9- Proposes to transfer occupational responsibilitites in Iraq to our allies, even though our allies are more demilitarized than they have ver been in history and could not sustain even 10% of the force size that we could. In later speeches he also stated that we are not sending ENOUGH manpower to counter terrorism.
10- Says he is for veterans, but in 2000 on the votes that the Military Officers Association of America considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 66 percent of the time. In 2003 on the votes that the The American Legion considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
11- Has not made a statement on his stance when it comes to taxes, but did vote over 350 times for higher taxes.
12- His wife does not plan on setting aside her position in the Heinz corporation if Kerry is elected.
13- Showed 90%-97% presidential support for Clinton, even though Clinton and Gore's own party platform statements contain many paragraph highlight their stance on issue he no claims he does not support under Bush. These include but are not limited to Privatized healthcare, strong (even pre-emptive) military action against terrorists and their supporting nations (including Iraq), multi-party negotiations with hostile nations (including North Korea), investments into building foreign democracies, and campaign finance reform.
14- Has proposed to open US borders, but has not provided any solutions to pay for the resulting influx of contraban, counterfit, or drug related product into the US.
15- Has never held a position of leadership outside of being a Senator.
16- He publicly supported a 50 cent tax increase on gasoline.
17- Says we are "alone" in our fight in Iraq when we are in fact taking action with the cooperation from 30 contributing nations. He has also failed to mention that we are working in concert with even more nations in Afghanistan.
18- Says we are too "distracted" from Afghanistan. However, 17,900 soldiers are stationed there and participating in operations to eliminate terrorist prsence, establish and protect newly appointed local government, and build/provide social infrastructure that prevents the growth of new terrorist networks.
19- Complains about under-funded intelligence services. In 1994, Kerry proposed an amendment to gut the Intelligence Budget by $6 billion across the board. The amendment cut $1 billion from FY 1994 and $5 billion for FY 1995 through 1998
20- Complains about the current "high" (4%) unemployment rate that is lower than the "low" (6%) unemployment rate that the Demoncratic Party was promoting as their reason for Clinton to be re-elected in 1996. Similar claims of a "low" unemployment rate were used in Al Gore's 2000 Presidential Campaign.
21- Claims that the economy is in bad shape even though "The 17 percent productivity growth from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2004 stands head and shoulders above the growth rate for any comparable period. In fact, it is better than any eight-year period since 1976. In the first 13 quarters of the Bush Administration, the basic determinant of our standard of living increased by almost as much as during the entire 32 quarters of the Clinton Administration." "(M)any analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades."
22- Kerry claims that we have not found WMDs in Iraq. So far, frozen culture sample of engineered botulism, artillery shells containing mustard gas, sarin, & cyclosarin have been found there.
23- Has accused Bush of being an illegitimately elected president in 2000 when he was "selected" by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush infact lost the popular vote by 1%, but won the electoral vote by 3.

B. Reasons to vote for George W. Bush

1- See "Reasons not to vote for John Kerry"
Reply
:iconworldhurricane:
worldhurricane Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2004
i've said many times that the worst reason to vote for kerry is to get rid of bush.
equally, the worst reason to vote for george w bush is to keep kerry out of office.

also, those are pretty weak reasons for not voting for kerry. been watching a lot of fox news?
i won't address the entire post, but one that jumped out at me: '11- Has not made a statement on his stance when it comes to taxes'
actually he has. several times. in 3 debates, on the campaign trail, and on his website. whether you like his stance is a different issue. i don't like the fact that i'll be getting heavily taxed under his administration (if he gets elected), but it's good that he's candid about the fact that he'll be taxing himself.

also, i can't help but laugh about the criticism of kerry for not being able to pay for his promises. people forget about all the promises bush made in the 2000 campaign. as a result, the surplus was squandered.

plus, i wouldn't really be voting for george bush so much as dick cheney. many of the same people who worked for reagan and bush sr are a part of the current administration, including cheney. you listen to cheney talk about the issues, and you listen to bush talk about the issues when he hasn't been coached. it's obvious who's well-informed. also, since we've seen much of this administration in office before, there's some precedent for figuring out how they'll respond to certain situations. i'm not just talking about iraq, but the middle east, and the third world in general.

with kerry, there isn't much precedent. being a senator is nothing like being a president. being a governor of a state is a bit closer (it's an executive branch office), but still very different. if he takes on much of the clinton administration (not likely based on what i know of kerry, but still possible considering they've begun taking advice from clinton's spindoctors), then we'll have some sense of how the kerry administration will respond to certain situations based on their actions in the 1990s.

i'm pretty far from an apologist for kerry, but i snear equally at the apologetic rhetoric for bush.
Reply
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2004
Atleast you're equitably cynical. :thumbsup:
Reply
:iconarrrg-pirates:
Arrrg-Pirates Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2004
Nice work creating some intellegent discource (Finally). :)
Reply
:icondigimancer:
digimancer Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2004
The worst platform for a candidate to work on is "I am not bush" or "I am not kerry".

Tell us why you are voting for bush.
Reply
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2004
I agree, but nobody else was providing any facts on John Kerry so I felt that I should.

Here are the reasons why I would vote for President Bush...

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE that defense spending and investment into military technology promotes national security and future economic growth in the private sector.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE President Bush is effectively working toward the above ideals.

I BELIEVE President Bush is a more qualified candidate based on his leadership experience and record of performance.
Reply
:icondigimancer:
digimancer Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2004
You believe in "the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored."
Yet you ignore the violations that Bush is leading of the civil liberties and rights. What about the freedom of choice in abortions?

you believe that "defense spending and investment into military technology promotes national security and future economic growth in the private sector".
You fail to acknlowdge that this war of terroism that Bush is leading does not even begin to root out the basic core issues that is riling up all these people to fight against USA in iraq and around the globe. The issues are social issues and not force. Russia could not take over afganistan, and you think USA being across the world is going to do a better job? Iraq is just going to be reduced into another rogue half assed nation.

you "BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity".
Bush has destroyed the economy with his tax cuts the effects of which will be felt in the decades to come. He has weakened the position of the dollar so significantly that countries are considering switching to the more stable Euro. Oh and "Every Child Left Behind" is a great policy too.

you "BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn".
I agree with that too.

you "BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least".
With the patriot act and homeland security you are telling me bush is promoting governing less?

you "BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people".
Agreed.

you "BELIEVE President Bush is effectively working toward the above ideals".
See above

you "BELIEVE President Bush is a more qualified candidate based on his leadership experience and record of performance". A leader that has no grasp of world geography, whose scope of the world is narrow, who has more bankrupt corportaions under his name. The mere fact that he was appointed by judges and not by a proper election result. What record of performance? He has turned the whole worlds back on America and lost credibility for America in the world (lieing about WMD and still not admitting that he has made a mistake). One of the greatest qualities of leadership is to admit it when you are wrong.
Reply
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2004
--Edited for code formatting mistakes. Sorry for the repetition--

I wanted to make a quantitive reply to your request for reasons but I didn't have time to do so earlier. Maybe I'll make one at a later time.

Yet you ignore the violations that Bush is leading of the civil liberties and rights.
Please provide instances of actual rights that he violated. And don't cite the patriot act please as it only relates to privacy, which is not a documented right. And don't cite gay marraige since Bush has the same plans as Kerry on that issue.
What about the freedom of choice in abortions?
It has yet to be decided whether or not a potential mother has thr right to choose supercede the inalienable rights of an unborn child and at what point in the unborn childs development that they are considered an individual. However, the accepted point in development at which an unborn child is considered an individual in the legal system when prosecuting defendants is 20 weeks. If a person can be convicted of the murder of both the mother and the child at that point. Why should the mother be able to murder that individual when another cannot without facing prosecution?

you "BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn".
I agree with that too.
Then did you know that Kerry voted for tax increases on 350 seperate occassions?

Bush has destroyed the economy with his tax cuts...
Economists would disagree with you.
"Many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades."
"The 17 percent productivity growth from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2004 stands head and shoulders above the growth rate for any comparable period. In fact, it is better than any eight-year period since 1976. In the first 13 quarters of the Bush Administration, the basic determinant of our standard of living increased by almost as much as during the entire 32 quarters of the Clinton Administration."
He has weakened the position of the dollar...
Also incorrect. The decreasing value of the dollar has declined to to foreign investment into our economy and our currency. The value of a nations currency is not an accurate measure of the economic status of a country anyways.
Oh and "Every Child Left Behind" is a great policy too.
That's not an economic point but I'll cover it anyways. "No Child Left Behind" is an independant oversight commitee that seeks to hold education districts responsible for advancing children that cannot read, write, or do simply arithmetic. Allowing public schools to practice without any expectations or standards of acheivement will only lead to further wasting of goverment educational funding.

With the patriot act and homeland security you are telling me bush is promoting governing less?
1. The Patriot act does not give power to the government, but to law enforcement. It's basically an accelerated warrant issuing process. It hedges the line on the seizure of property issues, but in the instance of privacy no such "rights" are garaunteed by the statutes in the law. However, the Act was determined to be well within the justified realm of constitutional interpretation.
2. Homeland security just not expand the span of control of the government. It expands the role of the defense department.

"Expanding government" involves the government assuming a role of controlling, regulating, supervising, or mandating over more areas. The Democratic Party seeks to expand government by issuing social programs, regulating businesses closely, and generally removing the responsiblity of philanthropic actions that the public would normally take care of on it's own. All of these actions promote the philosophy that people are NOT self-governing and are NOT capable of being wise stewards of the majority of their own finances. Therefore the Democratic party needs to raise taxes to accomplish those goals. Since I disagree with those goals, I will not be supporting a Democratic Candidate anytime soon.

A leader that has no grasp of world geography
John Kerry refuses to recognize that we are working in concert with 40 nations to secure the middle east.
who has more bankrupt corportaions under his name.
Compared to which president? I'm fairly sure Jimmy Carter or Herbert Hoover hold the record for bankruptcy under a presidential term. But then again I don't see your point since it's no big suprise that corporations would go bankrupt after n event like September 11th. President Bush didn't enact any policy or push any legislation that caused companies to go bankrupt, so your statement isn't really valid.
The mere fact that he was appointed by judges and not by a proper election result.
Wrong again. Bush won the electoral college, therefore earning him the presidency.
He has turned the whole worlds back on America
I'm not sure Germany, France, and Russia qualify as "The whole world". You're ignoring the dozens of countries that are helping us in Iraq. Also you seem to be ignoring that "The whole world" is pretty much aiding our efforts in Afghanistan.

lieing about WMD and still not admitting that he has made a mistake
Lie
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
First of all, everyone in the United Nations agreed that Saddam Hussein had possessed WMDs, had used WMDs, and was likely to still possess WMDs. The disagreement was what to do and when.
Second, in order to deceive you need the foreknowledge that what you are saying is false. The whole world was in agreement that what he was saying concerning Iraq and WMDs was true. So if you can prove Bush was lieing, then the rest of the UN was lieing too.
Third, We HAVE found WMDs in Iraq. The discrepency is the small number we have found, and where the rest of the WMDs we had counted when we left are now located.

One of the greatest qualities of leadership is to admit it when you are wrong.
He has admitted to being wrong, when there was proof he was wrong. Most of the "wrong" you stated above is your opinion without an corroboration or evidence.
John Kerry on the other hand has been caught lieing on numerous occassion and still refuses to admit his mistake or come forward with an apology or explaination.
Reply
:icondigimancer:
digimancer Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2004
Not talk about gay marriage? Bush is the one who seeks a constiuitional amendment to ban gay marriage. Thats not a violation of a persons rights?

As far as economy go read up on some of the speeches by greenspan. Economic stability is not judged by short term gains and it is too volatile to just go by some gains. The tax cuts and the increased debt will be felt in the years to come. Economy is subjective and you can find a way to justify either point of view. I believe from my experience in studying ecnomics (and not just relying on studies and polls) that these tax cuts are bad in the long term.

I love your response to this ....

"you "BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn".
I agree with that too.
Then did you know that Kerry voted for tax increases on 350 seperate occassions?"

Did YOU know That counts multiple votes on the same bills, and also includes essentially all of the major budget bills, which all the congress people eventually vote for when they pass them, and also has an extremely broad interpretation of the term 'tax increase'. Oh did you just read that off bush campaign poster?

For the record I am not an american citizen, but I had to go through the process of the patriot act because of my religion. I first hand experienced the crap that it was; all you have done is just read a few lines about it.

40 nations to secure the middle east? Give me the list of these supposed 40 nations (ooh poland). You have no idea what the state of the middle east is. You are again buying into the neocon approach to forced democracy. You know what was one of the last places they tried to do that? Iran. Thats right, USA installed the shah of Iran. Look at the tension that exists between Iran and Usa now. Think about it also in this way, while the american soldiers are fighting to give iraqi's freedom and democracy; the iraqi's believe they are fighting for god. Who do you think is going to win? For every day that usa is in iraq, the more recruits join al qaeda and other islamic extremists. Usa is not solving the problem, they are just adding fuel to the fire. I have two very close friends in Iraq and they constantly bitch about it being a pointless waste of crap.

Bush was appointed by judges basically the supremes ruled that florida had to stop it's recount, because the florida constitution had a deadline for submitting a final tally. Essentially they ruled (incorrectly) that the florida state constitutional tally deadline overrulled each voter's federal right to vote (a due process issue), thats a fact look it up. There is also that little case of the black listing of all those african american voters in florida.

I am not really trying to change your opinion or get you to vote for kerry. You are set on voting for Bush. But try to analyze bush with the same scrutiny you have analyzed kerry. There are bigger issues at hand that american media sadly glazes over. Look beyond your borders for your sources of information and opinions.

Bush practices facism and you support that when you vote for him. Read up some history books about facism. It starts with paranoia and extreme nationalism. If Facism is the path you want your country to take. Go for it.
Reply
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2004
Oh did you just read that off bush campaign poster?
No, I researched the information myself from senate records as presented on [link]

You are again buying into the neocon approach to forced democracy.
I what? I came to these conclusions on my own from independent research on the history of Iraq.

Give me the list of these supposed 40 nations
26 countries are contributing militarily (As stated in NATO's official fact sheet - [link])
---NATO members
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
--Partners
Albania
Austria
Azerbaijan
Croatia
Finland
former Yougoslov Republic of Macedonia (1)
Ireland
Sweden
Switzerland
---NON-NATO NON-EAPC partners
New Zealand
Afghanistan
14 other nations are contributing financially or with resources and information.

You have no idea what the state of the middle east is.
And you came to that conclusion how?
the iraqi's believe they are fighting for god
Incorrect. The fanatical terrorist believe they are fighting for god. Most Iraqis have stated that they are fightin for the welfare of themselves and their families.

Bush was appointed by judges <|no logical connection here|> basically the supremes ruled that florida had to stop it's recount, because the florida constitution had a deadline for submitting a final tally.
And it still didn't win him the popular vote, so your connection between the two is invalid. Bush didn't win because of Florida, he won because he got more electoral college votes. In fact, even IF Bush had lost the majority of the electoral college votes in Florida because of the miscounts, he still would have had enough electoral college votes from other states to win. Also, the electoral college is not exclusively effected by the popular vote.

Bush practices facism and you support that when you vote for him.
Fascism
function: Noun
1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

George Bush helped to dethroned a fascist dictator and disbanded his regime. Not by dictatorial control, not by individual decree. He had the support of the Congress and his cabinet to order actions to be taken. That alone disrupts the validity of your claim that he practices fascism.
The Pentagon has been urging the White House to take action against Saddam Hussein since the end of the Gulf War because we knew he was still posing a threat to the countries bordering Iraq as well as his own people. 16,000 people in Iraq were disappearing each YEAR and were either being tortured, sold to slave trade, or raped and tortured. that number is 3 times larger than any other nation in the world.
The President acted by legitimate due process and I don't remember anyone being threatened, tortured, or killed because they disagree with his decision. Your claim, yet again, is invalid.

Read up some history books about facism.
I have. You appearantly need to read about those periods in history again.
Reply
:icondigimancer:
digimancer Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2004
Shallow research on those list of countries.

Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); Singapore (Sep.04); and New Zealand (late Sep. 04).

Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland (starting Jan.04 and completed by end.05(?)).

Countries which have reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: Ukraine (-200); Moldova (reduced contingent to 12); Norway (reduced from ~150 to 10 late-Jun.04, early Jul.04).

Here is a more valid link and upto date link.

[link]
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondigimancer:
digimancer Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2004

No, I researched the information myself from senate records as presented on [link]\

You ignored what I stated that the tabulation counts multiple votes over the same issue.



Give me the list of these supposed 40 nations
26 countries are contributing militarily (As stated in NATO's official fact sheet - [link])
---NATO members
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
--Partners
Albania
Austria
Azerbaijan
Croatia
Finland
former Yougoslov Republic of Macedonia (1)
Ireland
Sweden
Switzerland
---NON-NATO NON-EAPC partners
New Zealand
Afghanistan
14 other nations are contributing financially or with resources and information.


Thats for Afganistan. Those are not the same nations for Iraq. Don't use a different list to justify the war
in iraq. Since you love links so much here is one [link]

To summarise what the link says ...NATO as an organisation had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign nor in its conduct. In response to a request by Turkey in February 2003 for assistance under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the Alliance undertook a number of precautionary defensive measures to ensure Turkey's security in the event of a potential threat to its territory or population.
On 21 May 2003, the Alliance also agreed to support Poland, a member of NATO, in its leadership of a sector in the multinational stabilization force in Iraq.


Don't just lump countries together. The french and germans sure did not support the war on iraq.



You have no idea what the state of the middle east is.
And you came to that conclusion how?

I was born here, spent about 16 years in the region as well as living here currently. I think I know this place a little better than you do.



Incorrect. The fanatical terrorist believe they are fighting for god. Most Iraqis have stated that they are fightin for the welfare of themselves and their families.

Incorrect maybe I should forward you some arabic newspapers that has scores of normal iraqis complaining about usa being there. Oh wait only english media has the right side of the story.


Bush practices facism and you support that when you vote for him.
Fascism
function: Noun
1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

George Bush helped to dethroned a fascist dictator and disbanded his regime. Not by dictatorial control, not by individual decree. He had the support of the Congress and his cabinet to order actions to be taken. That alone disrupts the validity of your claim that he practices fascism.
The Pentagon has been urging the White House to take action against Saddam Hussein since the end of the Gulf War because we knew he was still posing a threat to the countries bordering Iraq as well as his own people. 16,000 people in Iraq were disappearing each YEAR and were either being tortured, sold to slave trade, or raped and tortured. that number is 3 times larger than any other nation in the world.
The President acted by legitimate due process and I don't remember anyone being threatened, tortured, or killed because they disagree with his decision. Your claim, yet again, is invalid.

Read up some history books about facism.
I have. You appearantly need to read about those periods in history again.


Lets compare bush with one of the most facist people in history.

When President Bush decided to invade Iraq, his spokesmen began comparing Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler, the most monstrous figure in modern history. Everybody was therefore shocked when a high German bureaucrat turned the tables by comparing Bush himself with Hitler. As to be expected, she (the bureaucrat) was forced to resign because of her extreme disrespect for an American president. However, the resemblance sticks--there are too many similarities to be ignored, some of which may be listed here.

1.

Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.


2.

Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized disaster, in Hitler’s case the Reichstag fire, in Bush’s case the 9-11 catastrophe.


3.

Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate and despite the opposition of most foreign nations.


4.

Like Hitler, Bush has increased his popularity with conservative voters by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germany’s military buildup, Bush has used Al Qaeda and the so-called Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup. Paradoxically none of the nations in this axis--Iraq, Iran and North Korea--have had anything to do with each other.


5.

Like Hitler, Bush has promoted militarism in the midst of economic recession (or depression as it was called during the thirties). First he used war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis. Now he turns to the very same corporations to rebuild Iraq, again without competitive bidding and at extravagant profit levels.


6.

Like Hitler, Bush displays great populist enthusiasm in his patriotic speeches, but primarily serves wealthy investors who subsidize his election campaigns and share with him their comfortable lifestyle. As he himself jokes, he treats these individuals at the pinnacle of our economy as his true political “base.”


7.

Like Hitler, Bush envisages our nation’s unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God. Just as Hitler did for Germany, he takes pride in his “providential” role in spreading his version of Americanism throughout the entire world.


8.

Like Hitler, Bush promotes a future world order that guarantees his own nation’s hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations).


9.

Like Hitler, Bush quickly makes and breaks diplomatic ties, and he offers generous promises that he soon abandons, as in the cases of Mexico, Russia, Afghanistan, and even New York City. The same goes for U.S. domestic programs. Once Bush was elected, many leaders of these programs learned to dread his making any kind of an appearance to praise their success, since this was almost inevitably followed by severe cuts in their budgets.


10.

Like Hitler, Bush scraps international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court.


11.

Like Hitler, Bush repeats lies often enough that they come to be accepted as the truth. Bush and his spokesmen argued, for example, that they had taken every measure possible to avoid war, than an invasion of Iraq would diminish (not intensify) the terrorist threat against the U.S., that Iraq was linked with Al Qaeda, and that nothing whatsoever had been achieved by U.N. inspectors to warrant the postponement of U.S. invasion plans. All of this was false. They also insisted that Iraq hid numerous weapons it did not possess since the mid-190s, and they refused to acknowledge the absence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq since the early nineties. As perhaps to be expected, they indignantly accused others of deception and evasiveness.


12.

Like Hitler, Bush incessantly shifted his arguments to justify invading Iraq--from Iraq’s WMD threat to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to his supposed Al Qaeda connection, to the creation of Iraqi democracy in the Middle East as a model for neighboring states, and back again to the WMD threat. As soon as one excuse for the war was challenged, Bush advanced to another, but only to shift back again at another time.


13.

Like Hitler, Bush and his cohorts emphasize the ruthlessness of their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the bush team justified the invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Hussein’s crimes against humanity over the past twenty-five years. However, these crimes were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S. Our government supplied Hussein with illegal weapons (poison gas included), and there were sixty U.S. advisors in Iraq when these weapons were put to use (see NY Times, Aug. 18, 1992). U.S. aid to Iraq was actually doubled afterwards despite disclaimers from Washington that our nation opposed their use. President Reagan’s special envoy Donald Rumsfeld personally informed Hussein of this one hundred percent increment during one of his two trips to Iraq at the time. He also told Hussein not to take U.S. disclaimers seriously.


14.

Like Hitler, Bush takes pride in his status as a “War President,” and his global ambition makes him perhaps the most dangerous president in our nation’s history, a “rogue” chief executive capable of waging any number of illegal preemptive wars. He fully acknowledges his willingness to engage in wars of “choice” as well as wars of necessity. Sooner or later this choice will oblige universal conscription as well as a full-scale war economy.


15.

Like Hitler, Bush continues to pursue war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. Additional to unprecedented low interest rates bestowed by the Federal Reserve, he has actually cut federal taxes twice by substantial amounts, especially for the top one percent of U.S. taxpayers, while conducting an expensive invasion and an even more expensive occupation of a hostile nation. As a result, President Clinton’s $350 billion budget surplus has been reduced to a $450 billion deficit, comprising an unprecedented $800 billion decline in less than four years. At the same time the U.S. dollar has steadily dropped against currencies of both Europe and Japan.


16.

Like Hitler, Bush possesses a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. With the extra financing obliged by the defeat and occupation of Iraq, Bush now relies on a “defense” budget well in excess of the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world. Moreover, the $416 billion defense package passed last week by Congress will probably need to be supplemented before the end of the year.


17.

Like Hitler, bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he describes as a “coalition of the willing,” in order to give the impression of a broad popular alliance. These allies include the U.K. as compared to Mussolini’s Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria, as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II. As a result of their cooperation, Prime Minister Blair’s diplomatic reputation has been ruined in England, and a surprising election defeat has produced an unfriendly government in Spain. The Philippines have withdrawn their troops from Iraq to save the life of a hostage, and other defections can be expected in the near future.


18.

Like Hitler, Bush is willing to go to war over the objections of the U.N. (League of Nations). His Iraq invasion was illegal and therefore a war crime as explained by Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter, which require two votes, not one, by the Security Council before any state takes such an action. First a vote is needed to explore all possibilities short of warfare (in Iraq’s case through the use of U.N. inspectors), and once this has been shown to be fruitless, a second vote is needed to permit military action. U.S. and U.K. delegates at the Security Council prevented this second vote once it was plain they lacked a majority. This was because other nations on the Security Council were satisfied with the findings of U.N. inspectors that no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found. Minus this second vote, the invasion was illegal. Bush also showed in the process that he has no qualms about bribing, bullying, and insulting U.N. members, even tapping their telephone lines. This was done with undecided members of the Security Council as well as the U.N. Secretary General when the U.S.-U.K. resolution was debated preceding the invasion.


19.

Like Hitler, Bush launches unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939 (for example in his Sept. 19 speech), Bush wants Americans to think of Iraq as having been a “potential” threat to our national security--indeed as one of the instigators of the 9-11 attack despite a complete lack of evidence to support this claim.


20.

Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a “shock and awe” blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armored columns.


21.

Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed against enemy nations. Between 20,000 and (more probably) 37,000 are now estimated to have been killed, as much as a ro-1 kill ratio compared to the more than 900 Americans killed. In other words, for every U.S. fatality, probably as many as forty Iraqi have died.


22.

Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his official duty. This would be indicated by the unprecedented number of prisoners executed during his service as governor of Texas. Under no other governor in the history of the United States were so many killed.


23.

Like Hitler, Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea and Iran as potential third and fourth fronts. Much the same thing happened to Hitler when he advanced German military operations from Spain to Poland and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941. Today, bush seems prevented by the excessive costs of the Iraqi debacle from going to war elsewhere if reelected, but not through any lack of desire.


24.

Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing “regime change” by installing Quisling-style client governments backed by a U.S. military occupation with both political and economic control entirely in the hands of Americans. It is no surprise that Iyad Alawi, Iraq’s current temporary prime minister, was once affiliated with the CIA and has been reliably reported by the Australian press to have executed six hooded prisoners with a handgun to their heads just a day or two before his appointment a couple weeks ago.


25.

Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties in captive nations and depends on detention centers (i.e., concentration camps) such as a Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and any number of secret interrogation centers across the world. Prisoners at the camps go unidentified and have no legal rights as ordinarily guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. They have also been detained indefinitely (for 2 ½ years already at Guantanamo Bay), though there is mounting evidence that many are innocent of what they have been charged--some, for example, having been randomly seized by Northern Alliance troops in Afghanistan for an automatic bounty from U.S. commanders. Moreover, many Iraqi prisoners have been tortured, in many instances just short of death. Recent U.S. documents disclose that as many twenty have died while being tortured, and twenty others have died under unusual circumstances yet to be determined.


26.

Like Hitler, Bush uses the threat of enemies abroad to stir the fearful allegiance of the U.S. public. For example, he features public announcements of possible terrorist attacks in order to override embarrassing news coverage or to crowd from headlines positive coverage of Democratic Party activities. He also uses the threat of terrorism to justify extraordinary domestic powers granted by the Patriot Act. Even the books we check out of public libraries can be kept on record by federal agents.


27.

Like Hitler, Bush depends on a propaganda machine to guarantee sympathetic news management. In Hitler’s case news coverage was totally dominated by Goebbels; in Bush’s case reporters have been almost totally “imbedded” by both military spokesmen and wealthy media owners sympathetic with Bush. The most obvious case is the Fox news channel, owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Not surprisingly, recent polls indicate that the majority of Fox viewers still think Hussein played a role in the 9-11 attack.


28.

Like Hitler, Bush increasingly reduces the circle of aides he feels he can trust as his policies keep boomeranging at his own expense. Just as Hitler ended up isolated in his headquarters, with few individuals granted access, Bush is now said to be limiting access primarily to Attorney General Ashcroft (who also talks with God on a regular basis) as well as Karl Rove, the Vice President, Karen Hughes, and a few others. Both Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld are now said to be out of the loop.


29.

Like Hitler, Bush has become obsessed with his vision of conflict between good (U.S. patriotism) and evil (anti-Americanism. Many in contact with the White House are said to be worried that he is beginning to lose touch with reality--perhaps resulting from the use of medication that seriously distorts his judgment. Possibly symptomatic of this concern is the increasing number of disaffected government officials who leak embarrassing documents.


30.

Like Hitler, bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his C-average elitist education at Andover, Yale, and Harvard.


31.

Like Hitler, Bush misconstrues Darwinism, in Hitler’s case by treating the Aryan race as being superior on an evolutionary basis, in Bush’s case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.

Of course countless differences may be listed between Hitler and President Bush, most of which are to the credit of Bush. Nevertheless, the resemblances listed here are striking, especially since Bush’s first term in office must be compared with Hitler’s performance as German Chancellor through the year 1937, preceding the chain of events immediately preceding World War II. In any case, George W. Bush seems the worst and most dangerous U.S. president in recent memory (for me since Roosevelt)--if not in the entire history of the United States.


Ok maybe that is a little crazy to compare Bush and Hitler. No one said Hitler was crazy when he started out until the whole world witnessed what he had done. Bush is on a similar path of destruction and needs to be stopped before it gets out off hand.

But hey vote for Bush.

I am done debating :) enjoy your coffee with Mr. Bush.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2004
I wanted to make a qualitative reply to your request for reasons but I didn't have time to do so earlier. Maybe I'll make one at a later time.

Yet you ignore the violations that Bush is leading of the civil liberties and rights.
Please provide instances of actual rights that he violated. And don't cite the patriot act please as it only relates to privacy, which is not a documented right. And don't cite gay marraige since Bush has the same plans as Kerry on that issue.
What about the freedom of choice in abortions?
It has yet to be decided whether or not a potential mother has thr right to choose supercede the inalienable rights of an unborn child and at what point in the unborn childs development that they are considered an individual. However, the accepted point in development at which an unborn child is considered an individual in the legal system when prosecuting defendants is 20 weeks. If a person can be convicted of the murder of both the mother and the child at that point. Why should the mother be able to murder that individual when another cannot without facing prosecution?

you "BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn".
I agree with that too.

Then did you know that Kerry voted for tax increases on 350 seperate occassions?

you "BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity".
Bush has destroyed the economy with his tax cuts...
Economists would disagree with you.
"Many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades."
"The 17 percent productivity growth from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2004 stands head and shoulders above the growth rate for any comparable period. In fact, it is better than any eight-year period since 1976. In the first 13 quarters of the Bush Administration, the basic determinant of our standard of living increased by almost as much as during the entire 32 quarters of the Clinton Administration."
He has weakened the position of the dollar...
Also incorrect. The decreasing value of the dollar has declined to to foreign investment into our economy and our currency. The value of a nations currency is not an accurate measure of the economic status of a country anyways.
Oh and "Every Child Left Behind" is a great policy too.
That's not an economic point but I'll cover it anyways. "No Child Left Behind" is an independant oversight commitee that seeks to hold education districts responsible for advancing children that cannot read, write, or do simply arithmetic. Allowing public schools to practice without any expectations or standards of acheivement will only lead to further wasting of goverment educational funding.

With the patriot act and homeland security you are telling me bush is promoting governing less?
1. The Patriot act does not give power to the government, but to law enforcement. It's basically an accelerated warrant issuing process. It hedges the line on the seizure of property issues, but in the instance of privacy no such "rights" are garaunteed by the statutes in the law. However, the Act was determined to be well within the justified realm of constitutional interpretation.
2. Homeland security just not expand the span of control of the government. It expands the role of the defense department.

"Expanding government" involves the government assuming a role of controlling, regulating, supervising, or mandating over more areas. The Democratic Party seeks to expand government by issuing social programs, regulating businesses closely, and generally removing the responsiblity of philanthropic actions that the public would normally take care of on it's own. All of these actions promote the philosophy that people are NOT self-governing and are NOT capable of being wise stewards of the majority of their own finances. Therefore the Democratic party needs to raise taxes to accomplish those goals. Since I disagree with those goals, I will not be supporting a Democratic Candidate anytime soon.

A leader that has no grasp of world geography
John Kerry refuses to recognize that we are working in concert with 40 nations to secure the middle east.
who has more bankrupt corportaions under his name.
Compared to which president? I'm fairly sure Jimmy Carter or Herbert Hoover hold the record for bankruptcy under a presidential term. But then again I don't see your point since it's no big suprise that corporations would go bankrupt after n event like September 11th. President Bush didn't enact any policy or push any legislation that caused companies to go bankrupt, so your statement isn't really valid.
The mere fact that he was appointed by judges and not by a proper election result.
Wrong again. Bush won the electoral college, therefore earning him the presidency.
He has turned the whole worlds back on America
I'm not sure Germany, France, and Russia qualify as "The whole world". You're ignoring the dozens of countries that are helping us in Iraq. Also you seem to be ignoring that "The whole world" is pretty much aiding our efforts in Afghanistan.

lieing about WMD and still not admitting that he has made a mistake
Lie
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
First of all, everyone in the United Nations agreed that Saddam Hussein had possessed WMDs, had used WMDs, and was likely to still possess WMDs. The disagreement was what to do and when.
Second, in order to deceive you need the foreknowledge that what you are saying is false. The whole world was in agreement that what he was saying concerning Iraq and WMDs was true. So if you can prove Bush was lieing, then the rest of the UN was lieing too.
Third, We HAVE found WMDs in Iraq. The discrepency is the small number we have found, and where the rest of the WMDs we had counted when we left are now located.

One of the greatest qualities of leadership is to admit it when you are wrong.
He has admitted to being wrong, when there is proof he was wrong. Most of the "wrong" you stated above is your opinion without an corroboration or evidence.
John Kerry on the other hand has been caught lieing on numerous occassion and still refuses to admit his mistake or come forward with an apology or explaination.
Reply
:iconutro:
utro Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2004
Here's a response to your first 10 statements. The second half is coming.


1- Had a very very poor attendance record as a Senator in 2003 (28% attendance) and 2004 (20%). In fact, by the ethical codes of the Senate payroll he shouldn't have even cashed his paychecks as a Senator that year. But he did.

Hmm. These happened to be the two years he's been campaigning for the Presidency. Could that possibly be the reason? For the record, prior to his presidential run, his voting attendance record in the Senate was exemplary. And according to the Concord Monitor, Kerry's attendance record was 36% in 2003, not 28%. As of August 2003, Bush had spent 250 days on vacation, compared to Bill Clinton's 152 days in his entire eight year presidency. I really don't think he has room to talk about attendance.

2- Refuses to fill out an National Political Awareness Test, which would illustrate where he stands as a Political entity. This shows a refusal to demonstrate what it is that HE believes in. Not just what he's working towards.

Well, you're just completely misleading on this one, or you just don't do your research. Check out the following link and you will find that Bush has ALSO refused on 23 different occasions to take the NPAT. [link]
John Edwards is the only one of the four who has taken it.



3- Supports Pro-Choice, however he cites justifying example that would be covered under Pro-Life legislation anyways. Has voted Pro-Choice 100% of the time

In my opinion, as well as the opinion of the decision of Roe v. Wade, this is not a negative point at all. Pro-choice is good. What I've never understood is that Republican's always boast about less government--yet when it comes to abortion they want the government to control a woman's body. When it comes to Gay Rights, they want the government to control a person's happiness. Hypocrisy.

4- Promotes socialized medicine, but cites examples from countries that are currently trying to revert back to privatized medicine due to problems in quality of healthcare services provided in socialized system

John Kerry does not want socialized healthcare. He has always said that people will get to choose their plan, choose their doctor, and they don't have to take part in his healthcare plan at all. They can keep the one they already have.

5- Has written books on his theories of international policy which basically suggest that the US should be demilitarized and what remaining forces it have should be subordinate to the UN. Such an arraingement works against current Constitutional Amendments.

Source?

6- Testified after serving in the military concerning "atrocities" he saw while in service. If his statements are factual, by military law he is equally guilty as those that he claims commited such acts since he did not report them at the alledged time (while serving) to his commanding officer or anyone in an authority to take action. If his statements are false, he is guilty of purgory.

First of all, he was testifying on behalf of soldiers, paraphrasing testimony from veterans themselves in the Winter Soldier Investigation. Secondly, these were crimes committed under the direction of commanding officers. The Winter Soldier Investigation met to document these crimes admitted to by soldiers themselves. The witnesses stated that these acts were being committed casually and routinely, under orders, as a matter of policy:

"The Winter Soldier Investigation (WSI) grew out of the moral outrage of American soldiers who had committed acts in response to official orders and policies that were criminal in nature. The Citizens Commission of Inquiry (CCI), organized with the support of clergy, veterans, Quakers, and lawyers, had presented the testimony of a few courageous vets in 1970 as a means to expose the brutality of the Vietnam war. During that period, men who had taken part in the CIA's Phoenix Program--including former U.S. Army intelligence agents Michael Uhl, Edward Murphy, and Robert Stemme--disclosed its record of terror, torture, and assassination. The need to demonstrate a broader pattern became clear." William Crandall, Winter Soldier


"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down." -- John Kerry, April 18, 1971

Shootings in Free-Fire Zones were a common war crime commited in Vietnam, under the command of U.S. officers. In fact, in a televised debate on the Dick Cavett show on June 30, 1971, the Nixon-hired soldier, Navy veteran John O'Neill (now a swift-boat veteran for truth), also admitted to fighting in Free-Fire Zones.

"(Kerry) encouraged our enemies to rebuild and hang on when they were near defeat, as they were after the Tet offensive in 1968. Did you know our POWs had John Kerry's words quoted to them by their interrogators?" -- Retired U.S. Navy SEAL captain with service in Vietnam, John Bailey

Quoting a Swift Vote Veteran for Truth is not going to prove anything. Can you honestly say these things didn't happen? [link]

7- He has received medals for military action (three purple hearts, a silver star, and a bronze star), but the one of the three purple hearts was never signed off on by his commanding officer and is therefore of questionable validity.

And this is worse than Bush's record (or lack thereof) in the National Guard? Besides, I'm not saying it isn't true, but I've never heard of the medal not being 'signed off on' by his commanding officer. Once again, source? Preferably not that of a SBVFT.

8- He has contradicted himself (i.e. LIED) concerning his own past and credibility on several occasions. Usually involving his actions in the 70s.

I'll give you the medals thing. Simply because I do not know the truth about this. I know he was said to have thrown his ribbons, and that of another veterans medals, but not his own, which he left at home. That's all I know about it, so you can have that point. It's really not an issue to me. Whether he threw them away or not, does not make him 'unfit for command'.

9- Proposes to transfer occupational responsibilitites in Iraq to our allies, even though our allies are more demilitarized than they have ver been in history and could not sustain even 10% of the force size that we could. In later speeches he also stated that we are not sending ENOUGH manpower to counter terrorism.

We aren't sending enough manpower to counter terrorism. That's because we sent them all to Iraq, where, up until the war brought on an insurgency, there WAS NO terrorism. It was President Bush who just asked our biggest ally, Britain, to send more troops to Iraq.

10- Says he is for veterans, but in 2000 on the votes that the Military Officers Association of America considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 66 percent of the time. In 2003 on the votes that the The American Legion considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1. The number of uninsured veterans jumped by 235,000 since 2000, meaning they are losing health insurance at a faster rate than the general population, said Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates a universal national health insurance program. [AP, 10/19/04]

2. The report traced some of the increase to the Bush administration's decision last year to suspend health care services for higher-income veterans. [AP, 10/19/04]

3. According to the Administration’s own figures, raising co-payment fees will drive about 200,000 veterans out of the system and discourage another 1 million veterans from enrolling.” [Department of Veterans Affairs, 9/03]

4. Bush's 2005 budget falls more than $2.6 billion short of the amount needed to fully fund quality veterans' health care, according to The Independent Budget, an annual collective assessment by four veterans’ service organizations of the funding levels and policy changes needed at VA. [AMVETS Release, 2/3/04; VFW Release, 2/2/04]

5. In May 2004, the Administration decided to push for the closure of veteran's hospitals in Brecksville, OH; Gulfport, MS; and, Highland Drive, PA. Eight VA hospitals will be partially closed. In most cases, inpatient care will move to larger hospitals, leaving behind an outpatient clinic or long-term-care beds. The Administration is planning partial closures in eight other cities. In 2003, the Bush Administration proposed the closure of seven hospitals in its efforts to “restructure” the Department of Veterans Affairs. [USA Today, 5/7/04; Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03, 12/16/03]

6. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recommended that Bush veto the defense appropriations bill if it contained a fix to the concurrent receipt problem that penalizes military retirees who also receive disability assistance. The concurrent receipt ban stops a veteran who receives disability compensation from also receiving military retirement pay, effectively punishing disabled military retirees. Rumsfeld wrote that if the bill, “authorizes concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans’ disability compensation benefits, or expands TRICARE, then I would join other senior advisors to the President in recommending that he veto the bill.” [Rumsfeld Letter to Rep. Duncan Hunter, 7/8/03]

7. Recently a leaked OMB memo showed that the Bush Administration plans to cut veterans funding after the election. The secret memo showed that the VA should expect $900 million in cuts in FY2006.

8. And finally, that 87 billion dollar bill that Bush likes to talk about so much? As part of the $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriations for security and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, the Senate passed an amendment that provided an additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ..If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Foxnews.com, 10/21/03, [link] BVA legislative bulletin, [link] CQ, 10/20/03]
Reply
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2004
1. Hmm. These happened to be the two years he's been campaigning for the Presidency. Could that possibly be the reason?
So seeking his political ambitions affords him the ability to shirk his responsibilities in the position in which he is currently elected? I'm sorry that my percentage was off, but even still his attendance is far below the ethical 55% attendance minimum for Senators to be cashing their paychecks.

2. Well, you're just completely misleading on this one
Thank you for taking note of that. I retract that statement.

3. In my opinion, as well as the opinion of the decision of Roe v. Wade, this is not a negative point at all.
I was pointing out that his justifications are pointless and don't support his argument for Pro-Choice.

4. John Kerry does not want socialized healthcare.
He has made no official plans for adopting it, but has been promoting it.

5. Source?
"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." -- John Kerry, 1970
He has also made references in speeches concerning the gearing of his treatment of the military in the same way that President Clinton did in Kosovo and Bosnia. During which US troops were forced to wear UN uniforms and answer to UN officers. He frequently draws examples from former presidents in this way. Similar examples can be found in his most recent book.

6. Secondly, these were crimes committed under the direction of commanding officers.
There is no evidence that he attempted to either object to the orders or appeal to their commanding officers. If he believed so strongly that what he or other soldiers were doing he had an obligation to refuse orders of that nature or bring them to light. American atrocities in Vietnam were not widespread and only a few instances are documented.
Quoting a Swift Bote Veteran for Truth is not going to prove anything.
Navy SEALS did not operate swift boats. Swift boat crews were not expected to even see heavy combat and were therefore not heavily trained in combat operations. Their assignment however changed in scope and level of danger when the use of swift boat crews was change part-way into the conflict.

7. And this is worse than Bush's record (or lack thereof) in the National Guard?
Bush did not use his reserve experience as either part of his platform or as example of his skills as a candidate. John Kerry on the other hand has highlighted his military service as part of his resume during both his Senate campaign and his presidential campaign. Since he has made it an issue, it is liable to and warrants evaluation.
He has mistated on a number of occassions the extent and number of medals he has been awarded and one Purple Heart does not have public information regarding the official approval of it's awarding. Source 1: [link] Source 2: [link]

8. You can read more here if you want to. - [link]

9. We aren't sending enough manpower to counter terrorism. So his solution is to shrink our defending force in Iraq? The primary target for insurgent terrorists in the present?
That's because we sent them all to IraqWe sent the majority of the force, but not all of it because Iraq had a sizable army, the terrorists in Afghanistan did not. Also, the nature of the warfare in Afghanistan didn't warrant as large of a presence when the operations we are undertaking there require suprise and local coordination.
Iraq, where, up until the war brought on an insurgency, there WAS NO terrorism Saddam was terrorising the Kurds and Shi'ites and was actively hiring terrorists to defend and probe the Iraq-Iran border. He was also harboring terrorists that planned previous attacks upon the U.S. and other countries of NATO. Saddam was not tied to Al Qa'ida, but he was tied to many other terrorist groups as well as practicing terrorist actions himself.

10. If Kerry's platform is "for veterans" his voting record hasn't really shown it. That's all I was saying.
Reply
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2004
1. No comment on the Bush vacation numbers?
That's not comparable since when President Bush is "on vacation" he's still working. John Kerry can't practice his senatorial duties while campaigning.

3. I think his arguement is for the woman's right to choose, which is a right given by our government, and neither his beliefs, nor Bush's should have any effect on the governing (or taking away) of that right.
My belief is that no person has the right to dictate the subjegation of another human beings rights. By the letter of the law now, a fetus is considered an individual as early as 20 weeks.

5. That was 1970.
He has made similar statements in his most recent book.

7. Chicago Sun-Times is known for it's tabloid journalism. Great reference.
They didn't do the research. I have found the same information from a number of sources, including Snopes.

9. No. His solution is not to shrink our defending force in Iraq. It is to supply them with additional forces from this so-called coalition Bush keeps bragging about.
And how can he accomplish sending in more foreign troops when there isn't a sizeable pool of them to send in to begin with? The allies we have with us have been able to supply 17,000 troops and can't commit anymore since they don't have them to commit. Here are the countries in the "so-called coalition" you are referring to.

Forces from NATO Allies make up almost the entire U.K.-led division, including:
Czech Republic
Denmark
Italy
Lithuania
Norway
Portugal
Romania
The Polish-led division includes national forces from such NATO Allies as
Bulgaria
Denmark
Hungary
Latvia
the Netherlands
Norway
Slovakia
and NATO Partners
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
Estonia

Compare this to the nations participating in operation in Afghanistan and you get the following difference
Germany
France
Russia

And now the Shi'ites are terrorizing us.
Since they occupy a population size advantage over the other different regions and have never had a representative form of government, they want to be able to dictate the policies and structure of government. They have not made any violent actions that could be described as terrorism.
Along with the Sunnis
That is understandable since they were the ones given the most power under Saddam beforehand.
And I know there are Iraqi dissidents fighting in opposition to us. But they tend to be criminals that Saddam released from prisons in the region, former Iraq military officers, or fanatical patriots of the Sunnis or Shi'ites that want their group to have all the power in the newly formed government. They do not respresent the majority.

the country that was harboring THE man behind 9-11
And Iraq was harboring THE man that was responsible for planning an executing the previous attack on the World Trade Center, as well as a number of other internationally wanted terrorists.
Reply
:iconutro:
utro Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2004
1. No comment on the Bush vacation numbers? You can't have it both ways.

2. cool.

3. I think his arguement is for the woman's right to choose, which is a right given by our government, and neither his beliefs, nor Bush's should have any effect on the governing (or taking away) of that right.

4. No, he hasn't. As I said before, the people have the right to choose. This is just spin on your part and that of the republicans to scare people.

5. That was 1970. If you want to use quotes against candidates going that far back then I can list a few as well. For example: Bush said he favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78] People change their minds, grow up, and realize their mistakes. Some even have the humility to admit them.

6. Oh, sorry. A <Vietnam Veteran for Truth. Same damn thing.

7. Chicago Sun-Times is known for it's tabloid journalism. Great reference.

9. No. His solution is not to shrink our defending force in Iraq. It is to supply them with additional forces from this so-called coalition Bush keeps bragging about.

I know we didn't send ALL of our troops to Iraq. But seeing as how we hired the Northern Alliance to do our dirty work (and fail) for us in Afghanistan, it seems as though we should have kept more troops in the country that was harboring THE man behind 9-11.

And now the Shi'ites are terrorizing us. Along with the Sunnis, and according to a new intelligence report that came out yesterday:

The report says there is a core maximum of about 12,000 insurgents across the country, including foreign fighters, criminals and disaffected Iraqis.

"Some foreign fighters are coming in, but more of concern is the numbers of Iraqis picking up the fight," the official said.
Reply
:icondigimancer:
digimancer Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2004
If you want to understand why some people love bush, get rich. Its very hard to come to terms with having to pay such a large tax when you also have worked hard for your money.

For the record I don't like Bush much either.
Reply
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2004
Wow, your reasoning has so much supporting evidence that I'm overwhelmed. :sarcasm:
Reply
:iconjiieden:
Jiieden Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2004
Under 3,000 citizens, but the point stands. And of course Bush had to act, as any President would act in defense of the nation. I cannot point to anyone who, if in the Presidency, would not have acted against the terrorists after 9/11. How he went after them was another issue, and that was what I was referring to.

Killing all the terrorists that are currently alive might be a nescessary task (I agree it probably is) and yet you have to also acknowledge that this will not win the war on terror, because that is born of ideological conflicts and it is the fuel for the terrorist fire (forgive the metaphor).

As far as the third point, I was not intending (which I perhaps did) that God is a liberal either. My point was that neither side should claim God as his/her ally and their ally alone. Bush does this, on a regular basis, and because of this he does not believe he is capable of making a mistake, and yes, perhaps in my opinion alone, the inability of this administration to admit mistakes is its most dangerous tendency.

Though my third point (the one labelled 3) is indeed entirely opionated - some people do believe Bush is divinely lead - I dispute the fact that it is my opinion alone that his foreign policy is incompetant, lacking nuance, unilateral and destabilising. There is substantial evidence of this - even Kofi Annan stated two days ago that the war in Iraq has not made the world a safer place.
Reply
:iconrlyely:
rlyely Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2004
u should vote for bush because you are smart and don't want to get killing by a nuclear warhead.
Reply
:iconjiieden:
Jiieden Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2004
To the people who mindlessly flame Bush:
You are not convincing anyone. Please, let's get him out of office via intelligent rebuffal of his policies, not pointless Bush bashing - let Michael Moore do that for us, k?

I have an awful lot of objections to Bush, but to keep it simple, here's three:

1. Bush's foreign policy:

Bush has endorsed a policy of unilateralism despite remaining fully active in the world as the world's leading super power. One reason for the war in Iraq was to stabalize the Middle East, but with this administration's disregard for diplomacy/UN, we undermine the international consensus and thus deprive ourselves of the moral high ground. This has the net effect of destabalizing the world - yes, Libya has been strongarmed into giving up it's nuclear weapons development program (one of Bush's real accomplisments), but American diplomacy and American diplomats are no longer treated seriously, as Bush's administration undermines their work. For example, work to limit nuclear proliferation involved a number of multilateral treaties, which have stalled as a result of American incooperation.

2. In a similar vein of thought, as well as removing the respect of the world from our shores, Bush has also developed a policy of 'with us or against us' - this subtle view of the world almost always is not compatible with reality. Don't like the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions (reasonable, as it was flawed...), ok, then scrap it! I don't care that it took 10 years to develop and was our only attempt at stalling global warming. He made no attempt to rebuild or restructure the provisions of the treaty that interfered with his plans - he merely walked away from the bargaining table. Moreover, his entire stance on fighing terrorism seems similarily two-dimensional. His administration makes no allowance for the difficulty of determining the nature and cause of terrorism, instead preferring to see it as the great motiveless evil. Which it is not. Terrorism is fed on a number of issues (radical Islam, poverty, Israel/Palestine, anti-American feeling directed at our capitalist ideals) and we have not attempted to address any of these. Kill all the current terrorists if you like, but this war will not end so easily, as each one we kill will be replaced. We have to strike at their discontent, to prevent further motives for attacking us. Additionally we need to acknowledge that some groups desginated as terrorists view themselves as 'freedom fighters'. For example, whilst the PLA utilises terror tactics, it is aimed towards the creation of the state of Palestine.
This may seem abhorrent to us, all secure and happy in America, but consider, we too fought a war of Independance, and at the time, the British would have labelled us as terrorists if they knew the word.
There is a thin line between terrorism and freedom fighters. Sadly, this issue has not been addressed.

3. Bush seems incapable of admitting mistakes. This is dangerous, and born of his faith, in which he believes that he is guided by God and therefore unable of making mistakes. God is not a Republican, sadly, and so again the issue is not so simple. Additionally, Bush is attempting, by supporting the pro-life position, to remove constitutional freedoms. Bush's belief that he has a monopoly on God is perhaps the single most despicable thing about the man. He is entitled to be believe whatsoever he wishes, but he should not guide the nation in the belief that he is the chosen messenger of God.
He is not. (Unless you can show me that part of the Bible?)

Controversal, yes, but wait, please, believing abortion is murder is a reasonable position, espiecially if your religion commands that position. I am not disagreeing with that.
I am contending that the fact some religions view it as an evil means we should legislate it into a binding law, even on those who do not share that position. It is unfair on them and it blurs that most important line, that religion should and has to remain seperate from the state if we are to remain a semi-democatic country (the US is not a democracy, but that is another issue altogether).
Reply
:iconfloydianjoe:
FloydianJoe Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2004
I am saying this as an agnostic conservative:

If God is not Republican, how can you label God as Liberal? What is your place to decide who/what God is? I found that remark highly irrelevant to the thread. And many, if not all of the points made in #3 (let's be fair and say throughout your post) are based solely on your opinions and 0% fact (which is perfectly fine, just don't expect to get far with the opposing side).

In addition, in the time that it takes to "[determine] the nature and cause of the terrorism", what makes you think that the ones perpetrating the terror will not strike again? A nation does not get far by sitting on its hands....especially after over 3,000 of its citizens were slain on their own soil.
Reply
:iconfloydianjoe:
FloydianJoe Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2004
Typical liberal. OMG NOT BSUH LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!1! KERRY ALL THE WAY! R0x0r!!
Reply
:icondreamscape-painter:
dreamscape-painter Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2004
why should you vote for bush? well that's simple.

you shouldn't. :shrug:
Reply
:icondrkamakazy:
DrKamakazy Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2004
Well I dont' know for sure what you look for in a president for a number of reasons, I live in Canada, I'm under 18 and I'm not you but I do know that I have learn't alot from TV and I don't mean that long and secretly funded TV like CNN I mean something like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or any other satirical current events program, they give you the facts straight forward under a vail of comedy, you have to look past the comedy and look at the philosophical information.

Of course you could always just throw your vote away and vote for people like Nader.
Reply
:iconroninbearz:
roninbearz Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2004   Photographer
Here's a link--> [link] to why no thinking person would want to vote or reappoint W.
Reply
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2004
Um, Kerry supported Clinton. Who also had Pre-emptive action against terrorists and their supporting nations outlined in most of his party platform messages in 1996 and 2000. At which times Kerry gave him a 97% approval rating.
If Kerry is so AGAINST pre-emptive action against nations harboring terrorist, why did he support it under Clinton and not Bush?
Reply
:iconroninbearz:
roninbearz Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2004   Photographer
Wait I thought you were voting for elmo?
Reply
:iconcaptainslug:
captainslug Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2004
If he would run I might consider it. He could do wonders for defense with that magic crayon of his...
Reply
:iconroninbearz:
roninbearz Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2004   Photographer
He's not getting much main stream recogniztion, since he's a third party candidate. The republicrats have over shadowed him :) they're afraid of the maig crayon *LOL*!!!
Reply
:iconnickgreywoods:
Nickgreywoods Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2004
This forum is a hellhole.
Reply
:iconcageybutterfly:
CageyButterfly Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2004
Read A Matter of Character by DEMOCRAT; Ronald Kessler...

I'm not going to "argue" with you...As you put it...Depends on which issues are important to YOUR conscious...So~ I'll just point you toward a well-written, "easier", "quicker" read you won't find reviewed in largely-liberal New York Times;).
Then~ make up your own mind, for your own reasons...Conservatives have a lovely, time honored tradition of independant- thought...;)...In lieu of spoon-fed propaganda:D :poke:
Reply
:iconcorruptdesires:
corruptdesires Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2004   Writer
Bush has strong morals and values. The country was founde on God and with Bush we can keep God in the system. If Keery gets elected abortions will be legalized. Do you really want a liller as a president.
Reply
:iconutro:
utro Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2004
um...

abortion is legal. Ever heard of Roe v. Wade?
Reply
:iconadigitalartist:
ADigitalArtist Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2004  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Speaking of killers, did you know that this country also supports seperation of religion and state to protect people of other beliefs from Christian views? Why don't you go off and start a murdering crusade against Kerry instead?

Sheesh. Biblethumpers.
Reply
:iconcorruptdesires:
corruptdesires Featured By Owner Oct 14, 2004   Writer
um apperently you do not know your history. America was founded on God. This law of seperation of church and goverment was made to keep the goverment of of our religious beliefs not religion out of the goverment. Unlike you in will not try to do somekind of ad hominem fallacyto try to prove my point.
Ans also it says do not murder.
Reply
:iconadigitalartist:
ADigitalArtist Featured By Owner Oct 14, 2004  Hobbyist Digital Artist
America was founded on freedom from religious oppression from Europe. We may have some addage somewhere, and maybe some people that think America's the favored country by God, but it's a bunch of bull. We left Europe because religious icons and people were in control of the people and that will not. happen. here.
Reply
:iconodiomismo:
odiomismo Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2004   Photographer
uhhhhhh.... underage commie? I'm sure you're very opened to information about Bush.... It seems you already have your mind brainwas--- I mean made up. :ninja:
Reply
Add a Comment: