To Bush Supporters...

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Yeah - I was raised in a Hispanic houshold...but probably one of the most non-political housholds ever....not one person in my family ever mentioned politics or anything related to it - I was never taught anything about homosexuality - I took the initiative to learn about it on my own - and therefore formed my own opinions...

BUT then my uncle was "born-again" and man - he's wacked....it's hard to talk to him sometimes...as he's part of the dreaded religious right....( a group that does frighten me...)

It gives me hope to know that there are people in the world like yourself you can be um...for lack of a better term "enlightened" haha....I wish more people would open their minds and come to the realizations you did....

I like that...Brian, The Enlightened (Dont ask, Started reading Anne Rice's "The Blood Canticle" and I saw that Lestat wanted to be known as "Lestat the Magnificent" so...Best line so far is "Lestat, is my gay son going to Hell? (Absolutely not.)")

There's always hope others also become "Enlightened"...Look at me, Nuff proof to say" Need I say more"

Brian j.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Seriously, I cannot see how anyone could vote for W because every reason anyone has ever given me is not supported by the facts. But, gut instinct is something and I think alot of people went with that. plus, although I voted for him and wish he would have won, Kerry was no bed of roses and apparently about half of the country felt that way But, fact are facts and W is here for four more years. So, I have to "take on the situation but not the torment" - although venting here has helped!!!!!!

I love the excuse from Middle America that they're so worried about terrorism and that only Bush can protect them. But, when you look at the election results, the three places hit by terrorism (New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania) overwhelmingly went to Kerry. And if we were to be attacked again, I highly doubt they'd strike Indiana or Oklahoma; it's just absurd.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

wow - I never knew you were a Bush supporter...interesting

But yeah - I said what I meant - I may not agree with the man - but hey some do - and I don't feel as though your of anyone elses opinions are any less valid than my own....

In fact, I strive to always listen to and understand both sides of things - probably because of my job -

Yep, I am. Not on all accounts--but I am. Despite popular belief, I'm not a registered Republican so I would vote either way given the right candidate.

I will listen to both sides ALWAYS because I think it's what you have to do. But, there are some that are too far to the right and too far to the left to see that there's another side or to even listen to what anyone has to say (my father included). However, I will say this...no one is right (meaning, correct). Each party is seriously flawed.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by dissention

I love the excuse from Middle America that they're so worried about terrorism and that only Bush can protect them. But, when you look at the election results, the three places hit by terrorism (New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania) overwhelmingly went to Kerry. And if we were to be attacked again, I highly doubt they'd strike Indiana or Oklahoma; it's just absurd.

Oklahoma was attacked back on April 19,1995...But that was not in the same catergory as the type of attack NYC had on 911 (OKC was a brainwashed individuals "Holy War" on the US government that was to trigger a large scaled "Race War", But it sadly FAILED!!!!)

I do not worry about another attack in Oklahoma...I look West-ward towards California with worry.

Brian j.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

Oklahoma was attacked back on April 19,1995...But that was not in the same catergory as the type of attack NYC had on 911 (OKC was a brainwashed individuals "Holy War" on the US government that was to trigger a large scaled "Race War", But it sadly FAILED!!!!)

I do not worry about another attack in Oklahoma...I look West-ward towards California with worry.

Brian j.

If they were to attack again, they'd go for a major city. Chicago, Boston (conservatives pray that I perish ), Philadelphia, Los Angeles, something like that. They'd most definitely attack a coastal state, nothing in the middle of the country.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

or cut me off from the bar

Seriously, I cannot see how anyone could vote for W because every reason anyone has ever given me is not supported by the facts. But, gut instinct is something and I think alot of people went with that. plus, although I voted for him and wish he would have won, Kerry was no bed of roses and apparently about half of the country felt that way But, fact are facts and W is here for four more years. So, I have to "take on the situation but not the torment" - although venting here has helped!!!!!!

Oh hell no...lol

There was no one for the democratic party to choose from. They needed to choose someone they thought had more promise to get elected. Kerry was that man and now they have to do some serious reforming and thinking.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by dissention

If they were to attack again, they'd go for a major city. Chicago, Boston (conservatives pray that I perish ), Philadelphia, Los Angeles, something like that. They'd most definitely attack a coastal state, nothing in the middle of the country.

but an attack on the West Coast would cause the most fear for the rest of America...Example: A nuclear attack-The fallout would travel East-ward leading this country into the type of hysterics that can only be found in the Stephen King book "The Stand"...

Not a pretty site.

Brian j.

[Lisa1769]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

I try to rise above and just know that I live by my own convictions and they are right for me....

Nicely said.

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.

I was undecided for quite some time, but I voted for Bush. I have a 12 year old son and the thought of a draft scares the living hell outta me. Our military today is serving and fighting for our country because they chose to enlist. I applaud them for their bravery. I am saddened for the families that have lost loved ones serving our country. There's a difference in being drafted and voluntary. The statement I quoted above is totally uncalled for in my opinion. It's like your wishing anybody who voted for Bush deserves that their children be put into a war, or god forbid even be killed. But like Deanna said, I live by my own convictions and they are right for me.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lisa1769

. . . The statement I quoted above is totally uncalled for in my opinion. It's like your wishing anybody who voted for Bush deserves that their children be put into a war, or god forbid even be killed. But like Deanna said, I live by my own convictions and they are right for me.

I think Diss. was saying that is what will happen and people should not act like they were not warned but voted, stupidly IMO, for W anyway.

But, to be fair, because of the MESS W has gotten us into in Iraq (all based on lies mind you ) anyone who is President in the next four years will most likely have to institute the draft. Thanks alot W

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GardenStateGirlie

There was no one for the democratic party to choose from. They needed to choose someone they thought had more promise to get elected. Kerry was that man and now they have to do some serious reforming and thinking.

Not at all. We could have brought him back to life and nominated JFK, but when you have the incumbent and his cronies yelling and screaming that if you elect a Democrat you will be attacked and they wouldn't protect you, fear comes into play and you vote accordingly. The fact is that the Democratic party is not a well-organized hate and spin machine like the Republican party. Try as we might, we just cannot rival that party when it comes to dirty tricks and nastiness; it's only gotten more oiled since Clinton was elected. They successfully impeached Clinton, had people believing he was a rapist, yet we can't even inform people of the fact that Bush lied about Iraq and that his failing to capture Bin Laden has made us just as safe as we were in 2001. It doesn't come down to who is nominated and who isn't, it comes down to who has the nastiest and most twisted guns. We, unfortunately, do not have them. It doesn't matter at this point whether or not we nominate a presidential candidate from the deep south, they will not vote for Democrats because this administration has successfully poisoned them against us.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

These are all misconceptions. I don't see Bush trying to create a theocracy, and I certainly don't want one!

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

I'm not quite sure how you jumped to that insulting conclusion.

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 ) that some religious zealot made the medical decision for me instead of me and my doctor

This extremely rare situation is offered up again and again. How do you know such exceptions won't also be exceptions on a ban? And not all people against this are religious zealots, a mischaracterization you keep coming back to.

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 don't blame Bush for terrorists. They make their own choices. The 9/11 argument is completely fallacious - it would have happened regardless of who was President. Remember that Clinton also didn't recognize warning signs. It's unfair to lay that on Bush. And to my knowledge Bush never actually said that Sadaam Hussein had foreknowledge of 911. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Bush] 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.

Bush promised that? When? Also, I do think Bush should be more fiscally responsible. I disagree with some things he has done. But overall I believe his policies in this regard are better than Kerry's.

I will never understand how Christians can support this. The Decalogue says "Thou shall not kill."

Actually, the literal translation is "Thou shalt not murder . I know some people consider executions murder, but I believe they are two very separate entities, just as killing in warfare is not "murder." That mistranslation of the King James has caused such problems!

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.

I admit I prefer Republican extremists to Democratic ones! However, if Bush cowtowing to them so much, why is he being criticized by the very people you name as the worst offenders for being too centrist in his policies?

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?

Has Bush made any laws concerning sodomy? Or are you referring to him being against gay marriage? Isn't Kerry also against that?

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.

I don't believe Bush has suggested any laws requiring people to be Christians or believe in God.

Thank you for your nice ending comment, Jason. I'm glad if you saw me driving by you wouldn't want to beat up on me because I support Bush.

[LilyRose]

Okay. I feel that I've gotten my answer. I had said that I didn't want to start a huge debate. I simply wanted the "other" opinion.

Thank you all,

Susie