To Bush Supporters...
 

First of all, congratulations.

I'm a democrat and I just want to try and come to an understanding of how the other half of this country thinks.

I don't want to start a huge debate. I just simply have one sincere question:

Why do you believe that Bush is the better leader for our country?

Thank you,

Susie

hmmm

I have a feeling this is going to get ugly.

*sits back to watch the show*

:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh:

I'd like to understand this too but I cannot. Sorry.

I don't think anyone here would dare tell why they voted for Bush.
The way this board has bashed anyone who even attenptes to support him, or show a different opinon. I have never seen such hate, venom, disregard for a leader or any one that supports Bush on any place ever.
Sure makes me Glad that I'm a Canadian. We don't do nasty politicing in Canada.
Now it is the time for your country to show the world you can unite and not be so arragant. Thats how it looks from this side.
Regardless who we have in power in my country. I will pray for our leaders instead of cursing and tearing them down.
I suppose I will be attacted for speaking my mind. After all this is how this board operates.

Well here goes...
 

You're right Alison, but I will go ahead and TRY, although I'm not looking forward to the froth-mouthed replies I'll probably get.

I don’t have much time because I have to leave for class, but I’ll shoot off some quick ones. I don’t agree with everything Bush/the Republican party stands for, but here are some issues which make me a member of that party and a Bush supporter:

- He is pro-personal responsibility and therefore doesn’t support unfair quotas and expand wasteful big-government programs
- He’ll put conservative judges on the Supreme Court if need be
- He’ll stand fast against partial-birth abortion
- He’s better equipped to deal with the terrorists
- His tax policies are more fair to all income levels (and no, I’m not rich)
- He is pro-death penalty
- I don’t trust Kerry not to cave to the extremists of his party

And, finally, the overwhelming liberal contempt for people of faith is a huge turn-off. The hateful posts I see here totally confirm my worst fears about the attitude of the Democratic party towards people like me, and now the majority of Americans who dare to hold different political views. It’s scary and I don’t want anything to do with it. I truly believe this hateful attitude is what made the necessary undecideds turn to Bush (who are now lumped in with the psycho extremists, of course, because they don't think the "right" way).

Well, I just felt like addressing all of this to further show how I personally think that Bush should not have been reelected.



- He is pro-personal responsibility and therefore doesn’t support unfair quotas and expand wasteful big-government programs

Well, I think this is one of the bad things about our country. This concept of rugged-individualism can be a bad thing in that sense. We are one of the richest countries in the world, yet we have more people below the poverty line, because we don't help them. But I know if I say we should have government-sponsored health care for all, I'll be called a Communist, right? Oh well. I used to be a social work major, and I was big on this issue. I do not believe there are enough government programs to help the poor and disadvantaged.

- He’ll put conservative judges on the Supreme Court if need be

I don't see why we need partisan judges on the Supreme Court at all. Even so, Bush said he wouldn't use a litmus test anyway, though I didn't believe it.

- He’ll stand fast against partial-birth abortion

As much as I hate any abortion, I don't believe we should be banning partial birth abortions because of extreme cases in which they are necesssary.

- He’s better equipped to deal with the terrorists

I don't feel like I've seen any evidence of this. We attacked a country that was not related to the terrorist attack of 9/11. Basically, I don't feel safer because so many people are pissed off at our country.

- His tax policies are more fair to all income levels (and no, I’m not rich)

I can't understand how tax cuts for the rich help anyone.

- He is pro-death penalty

This is one of the biggest reasons I didn't vote for Bush.

- I don’t trust Kerry not to cave to the extremists of his party

I don't think he would have done that at all, mainly because I don't think of him as a very liberal Democrat at all. He was much too conservative of a Democrat for me, so I couldn't imagine him caving in to the extremists of his party. However, I do think Bush would do that.

And, finally, the overwhelming liberal contempt for people of faith is a huge turn-off. The hateful posts I see here totally confirm my worst fears about the attitude of the Democratic party towards people like me, and now the majority of Americans who dare to hold different political views. It’s scary and I don’t want anything to do with it. I truly believe this hateful attitude is what made the necessary undecideds turn to Bush (who are now lumped in with the psycho extremists, of course, because they don't think the "right" way).

I'm speaking for myself (but probably many others as well) when I say this is a knee-jerk reaction to having the other side jam religion down my throat and try to infringe upon my rights because they think their opinions are the only right ones. Being treated in that manner tends to incite anger and hostility in people, understandably, I would say. But it is not people of faith in general. I have Christian friends who are very open-minded and I respect their beliefs, since they have been very good about not throwing them at me and generally being kind and understanding people, as the religion often suggests they would be.

Hillary

Nancy, I have nothing against people of faith, nor do I think most people do here. Where it becomes a problem is twofold. Number one, I don't believe faith/religion belongs in government policy. Number two, the faith Bush espouses is Christianity. There are millions of people in this country who practice other faiths, or no faith at all. And we deserve every right and protection to practice our faith (or no faith) as any Christian does. When Bush tries to set policy based on *his* god, the Christian god, then I think people who don't follow that same faith have a problem.

:nod: Amen to that.

Hillary

It's really hard for me to be a Christian when I get bibles thrown in my face telling me God hates me and people trying to "convert" me back to heterosexuality. Well, I've never been a heterosexual so how can I change back?

I have no spiritual health now because of what I do in my bedroom. It's hard for me to believe that I will go to hell because I kiss guys....because I love someone back......because I care about a person's life. It's okay to kill someone because they did wrong, but it's damnation for me because I hold hands with a male? I don't see the logic in that. :shrug:

Someday these families will see when they have children of their own. 10% of them will be gay. How will they deal then?

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy,

I believe you know it's not fair to lump all of Kerry's supporters (or liberals, for that matter) into one mischaracterized group. It's true that I am saddened and disappointed by the result of the election, but I consider myself to be a liberal because of my views of tolerance, social justice, and peace. I think there are plenty of Democrats/Kerry supporters/liberals who share this way of thinking. It's offensive to me that the conservative right has portrayed itself as the only people of faith and morality in this country. It's unfair and dead wrong.

You know I would never say anything derogatory about you and I am not abusive toward others because of their views. I know there are people who are not crazy extremists who have supported Bush, and though I believe they are wrong, I accept their right to be wrong.

I don't know how people who voted for Bush in the South, Plains States, and Upper West got the idea that Democrats are immoral. Maybe what the Party needs is to better explain the moral basis of our positions on issues. There IS a reason liberals feel as they do...and it's not just because we want to send the country to hell in a handbasket, throwing out money to every undeserved on the way down. :rolleyes:

PS: I will never understand how supporting capital punishment is the Christian thing to do. :shrug: But I suppose that's another issue entirely.

btw, the point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that liberals/Democrats are indeed moral people. They espouse a different kind of morality that I believe is actually more in line with what most mainstream Americans believe. What we need to do is communicate that to people and appeal to their hearts, not just their pocket books and brains. I'm not saying that we need to change our views or positions in any way. Just reframe in a way that people will understand and adopt as their own.

A rambling and verbose support of Nancy
 

I tend to agree with nearly everything Nancy said. Just so she has a little back up I will also respond to some responses to her post (hope you don't mind). First let me state that I actually favored neither candidate and chose to write in a certain ex Arizona Senator. I know it made no difference, but there you go.

I agree that there are not enough programs to support the poor and underprivaledged in this country. However, Kerry's principle solution to this problem is to raise taxes (and not just for the rich, granted a majority of the times he supported tax hikes were for cigarettes or other specific item taxes, his support to income tax hikes were universal). Given that record I would have to favor Bush for his "individualism" approach. We do need more support programs but it isn't the place of the goverment to take more money from us.

I know that bit rambles, I'll edit later.

I know little about partial birth abortions so if someone could tell me an example when they are absolutely necessary and would still be banned by the proposed bill I would very much like to hear it. This is not meant to be as much of a "I dare you to back your statement up." I am legitimately ignorant on this subject.

On the terrorist matter, this is where Kerry being portrayed as a flip flop hurt him the most. It seems many people feel it is important to have a strong stance against terrorist even to the extent of committing the wrong act to ensure safety. Not something I agree with 100% but it does seem better than someone who would spend months trying to decide what to do and ultimately letting the moment pass him by (letting a terrorist get away with it).

Death penalty I commented on in this forum before.

Additionally it is lucky for us that Bush does not SET POLICY. That is not his job. He can support bills and encourage support for certain bills, but he DOES NOT set policy.

Also as unfair as it is to group kerry supporters into one group it is also unfair to group anybody into one thing conservative right, christians, homosexuals, heterosexuals. Blanket statements ALWAYS have expceptions no matter which side is making the statement.

Michael

That is what I thought you meant but I did not want to make an assumption. Is it still banned in those situations?

Michael

Kinda hard to do with Bush in office--see, that's the whole point. :rolleyes:

Yeah, and Christians are so tolerant of the way non-believers feel. I do believe there are two sides to the coin here, let's not go calling the kettle black.

With respect and in general I say:

Yes, and they will create an Unconstitutional theocracy, which is great if you are a Christian. But, it is not so great if you are not. Moreover, conservative judges will allow the govt. to come into our bedrooms, homes, etc. and tell us how to live our private lives. How anyone can be for that is beyond me. But, many are and many more want the national religion to be Christianity and none others really tolerated or at least respect as much as Christianity. That is not what America is about - yet the preachers scare the parishioners into believing it, e.g. Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, etc. Again, if you were a Muslim and you walked into a Court of Law and saw a 5 ton monument of the Christian Decalogue and had some conservative judge screaming "this is the law because the Christian God is the law" - how would you feel? I would feel terrified and like a second or third class citizen. But, most of Christian America refuses to see that. How can that not be wrong?

I believe in a woman's right to chose no matter what my personal feelings on abortion are. In fact, I think if we actually taught people in high schools how to have safe sex and gave them the tools necessary to do so, there would be far fewer abortions. But, the religious right cannot abide that idea. They think abstinence is the only policy even though they know it will never work because it has never worked historically. Yet, preaching against it fills the church coffers I guess :shrug: And the bill they past clearly is Unconstitutional because it does not allow a woman's physician to care for her. How would you like it if your doctor told you the only way to save your life was through this partial birth method but that he could not perform it so you both die. I think I'd be pissed (albeit briefly :laugh: ) that some religious zealot made the medical decision for me instead of me and my doctor :shrug: But, the debate on abortion will rage long after I am dust in the ground and we certainly are not going to solve it here :shrug:

I do not agree. I think he is better equipped at saying a country is a direct and immediate threat and then ignoring the contrary facts and invading them anyway. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists and W has failed to capture OBL. Moreover, 9/11 occurred on his watch and there was some general warning of it. Granted that warning was mostly general, but W was too preoccupied with Iraq to even consider it. And then, did he learn from his mistake - no - instead he bootstraped Iraq onto 9/11 (which was a lie and he knew it was so) as if to complete his first errant and myopic thought. Finally, his cavalier attitude and brash actions in Iraq have caused us to be hated even more in the Arab community, which I never thought was possible.

I agree. I do, however, think the upper 1% should have gotten less of a break, but they still should have gotten a break. AND - according to Greenspan the initial spark created by the tax cuts could possibly have have been the needed catalyst to jump start the economy if W had had any amount of fiscal responsibility. But, he did not. He cut taxes and then spent the money we no longer had and then some. Now we are in debt up to our foreheads and he will probably double that in the next four years if he keeps the current pace. AND - if he had spent the borrowed money here that might have even remotely been a good thing for the economy. But, he did not. Instead, he invaded a country that was not the incorrectly alleged immediate threat to us, then promised us their oil would pay for their reconstruction. Well, their oil is not. Instead we are and it is breaking us. So, while I am all for tax cuts - they must come with fiscal responsibility, a trait W clearly lacks.

I will never understand how Christians can support this. The Decalogue says "Thou shall not kill." How do they get passed that. I mean it does not provide a caveat for murderers :shrug: AND murder and in fact war goes against everything Christ stood when He said "turn the other cheek" AND after all Christ was a victim of the death penalty. But, I get it is a vengeance thing and that is a palpable remedy for most. So, it is here to stay I think. As for me, I'd rather not have it but if someone killed my kid, I'd want them dead. Thus, I am a hypocrite and cannot apply in reality my lofty abstract ideals :shrug:

True, Kerry probably would. But, W clearly has. He is so beholden to the far far religious right that he is a cipher for them. So, I guess if you are on the religious right this is a good thing. Anyone else is screwed and their rights will be and are being taken away. Here is a good example is this. How can sodomy (and we are not just talking homosexual anal sex here but heterosexual anal sex, fellatio, etc. - this is how most statutes defined the term "sodomy" ) possibly hurt any consenting party much less the state, who is the alleged victim? Yet, the far religious right wants to come into hetero and homo sexual bedrooms and dictate how, when, where, and on whom sex is performed. How can anyone be for that? But, W is.

I have no contempt for faith in God, Allah, etc. What I do have contempt for is people asserting that the U.S. Fed. Govt. on down has the right to make me or anyone else believe in God and live by the Christian way. While I do believe in God and am a Christian - I fully realize it is possible to be a great American and believe on no god and/or be a Wiccan, a Muslin, a Jew, etc. So, whenever I go off on religion, I am not saying religion is a bad thing. I am solely saying religion through government, which is the objective of the current Republican party, is a horrible thing done by horrible people AND it is completely contrary to the U.S. Const. Yet, the press has made it so any attempt to keep religion and govt. separate is a direct attack on religion itself. Again, I am all for the Christian or any other Decalogue but I do not think the U.S. Govt. or any other govt. has the right to make me believe in it. I do not think they have the right to make me say I will have no god other than their God. Moreover, I say if any citizen wants to put the Christian or any other Decalogue in any private space, more power to them. What I object to is the govt. doing it and then saying this is the law, which is exactly what happened in Alabama. Yet, that exact argument is twisted into me saying private citizens do not have the right to display the Christian Decalogue and the secularlists are trying to take away the right to worship God. I mean how is me saying the govt. ought not sponsor a religion the same thing as me saying you cannot practice religion? Thus, the battle rages.

Tone - respect as always because Nancy (Sodascouts) is a good friend whose opinion I cherish and respect. We just respectfully differ on these points!!!

Back the truck up! That is a prime example of an erroneous blanket statement. There are several republicans (granted not a majority, heck not even a noticeable minority) that are not even christian so saying the current republican party wants to have religion through goverment is ridiculous. There are several republicans in key positions within the party who do seem bent on this path (the majority leader for one), but the party as a whole can not be proclaimed to have the objective of religion as government. To also classify these people as horrible people is an ad hominem attack and unwarranted here.

Michael

Yeah, the liberal extremists on this board are indicative of the Democratic party as a whole. :rolleyes:

Forgive me while I puke. Nevermind, I haven't stopped since Tuesday night.

LMFAO. Oh the basis of having nice hats, I say we could elect Stevie.

What is that?

Ah-Ha! I was wondering when you'd show up. :wavey: Get ready for more puking....

"ad hominem" BTW - is one of my fav.'s

Of course not all R's feel this way. But, I submit the vast majority do. So, I was just calling it like I see it. I know of no instance where any part of the R party has opposed any instance of govt. sponsored Ten Commandments in public buildings. They have all, or at least all I have seen, supported it. I think that is wanting to est. an theocracy and really see no valid argument against it. But, if your version differs, so be it and I certainly hope you are correct and I am in error :cool:

Sorry I wasn't hear earlier, my head was still in the bowl.

To hell with every person who voted for this scum. You've signed your death warrant and I hope you suffer because of it.

Bull**** and you know it. The Republican party was hijacked by the religious wackos when Reagan was in office and they now run it. To say otherwise is delusional.

The joke's on us, but the real bitch is, the joke's on all of us, even the Kerry supporters. :distress:

You mean like George did on 9/11? :confused:

Not really. We've lived through his imperialism and trickery for the last four years, we have nothing left to lose. But when he starts drafting the children of his supporters, I'll just sit back and remember the old story about the lady that swallowed a fly...and it killed her. You reap what you sow.

Can someone explain to me why the belief here is that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to kill her baby as it is being born? I mean, if that's the case, shouldn't it be my right to choose if I want to off somebody in the street? Killing is killing, no matter how you try to spin it. For the record, I'm against the death penalty, too, so I don't feel I'm being hypocritical here. And seriously, explain it to me, because I'm honestly curious how one can justify it.

You mean like Bush giving Bin Laden a two month running start before going into Afghanistan? Surely you jest.

Yep - AND I love how people think Kerry waiting for world support is a bad theing when that is EXACTLY what W did in Afganistan. He, through Powell, got a coalition together. Yet, when some of that coalition refused to go into Iraq because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, W's admisitration fostered ill will toward those countries. I just cannot see how people can support W when he is just creepy and he destroys anyone who gets in his way, no matter what good those people may have done for America in the past.

Do you even know what partial-birth abortion is? It's not "killing a baby as it's being born." How absurd.

We had a whole thread about this throughout the week, read it please.

go to georgewgirls.com Although it was meant to be humerous, it's true as well. Even has a paragraph and articles on how Bush has even flip-flopped throughout his presidency.

I hope you're right, because I fear that we won't be here in four years. The world hates us, and it's only going to get worse. Sorry for the doomsayer attitude but let's face facts, our fate is in his hands and that scares the piss out of me.