DescentBB

I have one question for you: why?

Because Kerry is a douche. Do we really need another reason?

As much answers were given coming up to and following the election on this board, me thinks you're just trying to stir up more shiat Ferny. You may not like those answers or particularly agree with them but Kerry is not, nor will he ever be worth a damn.

Bush on the other hand is slightly worth a little more. It also has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of Americans, when they stop bitching and complaining about how Bush does 'other' things, do agree with his no nonsense go-get em' approach to being a President. He doesn't take shiat from nobody and frankly a lot of us appreciate that.

The war.

Regardless of his perceived motives regarding oil, power, and payback, the fact remains that Bush did something about this while most of the the world (especially the U.N.) seemed content to impotently shrug their shoulders and say "not my problem," or worse, subsidize it while lining their pockets. Bottom line, Bush is a doer, Kerry is a Monday morning quarterback with hindsight "plans" and convictions fed by polls. Bush is optimistic and positive, Kerry is dour and indecisive.

Saddam is in prison and his murderous *ss won't sit here ever again. His depraved heirs, Uday and Qusay, are dead.

The Taliban are out of power and the people of Afghanistan (including women) have a shot at a decent future.

Hundreds of terrorists have been captured or killed.

The Muslim world realizes the U.S. won't sit around in politically correct fear and suffer an exported tide of psychos drunk on Islam who are determined to undermine our ideals.

Libya willingly gave up it's mass weapons program.

Arafat was marginalized.

bin Laden has been reduced to quoting Michael Moore.

U.S. soil hasn't been attacked since 9-11.

In a nutshell, those are my reasons.

Tyranny wrote:Because Kerry is a douche. Do we really need another reason?

As much answers were given coming up to and following the election on this board, me thinks you're just trying to stir up more shiat Ferny. You may not like those answers or particularly agree with them but Kerry is not, nor will he ever be worth a damn.

Bush on the other hand is slightly worth a little more. It also has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of Americans, when they stop bitching and complaining about how Bush does 'other' things, do agree with his no nonsense go-get em' approach to being a President. He doesn't take shiat from nobody and frankly a lot of us appreciate that.

X2

/me = disgruntled democrat

Bush=Spine
Kerry=Spineless

The war, of which Iraq is but a small part. I'd prefer we finish it sooner rather than later and with as little bloodshed as possible.

I voted for President Bush because I believe more in his vision and proposed policies than I did in those proposed by Senator Kerry. I also had a lot more faith in the President to keep his word. The President seems to say what he means and do what he says. Even if I had been inclined to favor the Senator's proposals, I would not have trusted him to deliver.


Let me tell you how I formed my political philosophy.

My first taste of national politics was the election of 1976. At the time, I lived with my mother's parents for two years while she was attending college and my parents were going through some lean times. My grandparents were Depression-era Democrats, died in the wool FDR worshippers, who spouted nothing but scorn for Republicans and "the rich". I soaked all of that in and was a cheerleader for Governor Carter in his bid to win the Presidency. I remember election day, riding with my grandparents to the polls, asking them on the way home if they voted for "the Peanut Guy", and I remember their pleasure the next day when he won the election.

Everybody in my family supported Governor Carter... except for one person, my father. I did not understand why he disagreed, so I asked him. He told me, "Son, I just don't believe in him. He promises good things, but he will not deliver on them. You will have to watch and learn that politicians cannot be trusted to do what they say. I voted for the man that I had more belief in." I thought about that as I watched President Carter's performance. Our economy sank like a stone. Interest rates neared 20%. Unemployment was on the rise. When I asked those in my family who had voted for President Carter why things were getting worse under his leadership, none of them had any meaningful answers. Some even got angry at me for daring to question a Democrat.

The ordeal of the Iran Hostage Crisis is burned into my memory. The feeling of national helplessness in the face of that event had me listening to Governor Reagan's side of things. I didn't really know what to make of it, but I was willing to see him get a chance. I felt President Carter did such a poor job across the board, I wanted him out and bring in somebody new. I was cheering on election night when the President went down in flames. Now it was up to the new President to show me what he could do.

I was in school when John Hinkley shot the new President. There was a lot of talk about Kennedy's assassination and there seemed to be relief among all adults when President Reagan survived. There also seemed to be a break in the partisanship, as Democrats quieted down in the wake of the shooting. Although things got worse before they got better, with Reagan's tax cuts, things DID get better. They got way way better in fairly short order. By the time I was in high school in 1983, America was getting back on its feet. Both in terms of the economy and in terms of America's place in the world through its foreign policy, life in the 80's was a world apart from life in the 70's.

For me, the choice between Democrat and Republican will always boil down to Carter and Reagan. On the one side we've got liberal tax and spend galore, weakness and indecision in terms of national defense and foreign policy, and broken promises. On the other side, we've got conservative spending cuts AND tax cuts, strong defense and foreign policy, and faithfulness to what was promised on the campaign trail. And to my observation, this contrast has held up unbroken through my lifetime.

I'm a Reagan Republican. I voted for the man that I had more belief in.


- Sirian

I agree with Bush's stance on moral issues, specifically cloning, abortion, and stem-cell research. I also think that, despite some very difficult circumstances, he has provided strong leadership. I approve of his military leadership and of the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. From what little I understand of economics, I support his policies there. Deeper than this, though, when listening to Bush, I get the genuine feeling that he is doing everything in his power to keep this country safe and make it better. He's also a no-nonsense guy who won't take crap from anyone else if America's security is at stake. Listening to Kerry, I got the impression of someone who would say anything just to get in office and who did not have any firm convictions of leadership. I also highly disapprove of him turning against his faith by supporting abortion. To me, Bush was the obvious choice.

the one side we've got liberal tax and spend galore, weakness and indecision in terms of national defense and foreign policy, and broken promises. On the other side, we've got conservative spending cuts AND tax cuts, strong defense and foreign policy, and faithfulness to what was promised on the campaign trail. And to my observation, this contrast has held up unbroken through my lifetime.

Right, one side is faithful to campaign promises. Sure
I remember in 2000 a chimpy man on a stump complaining about clinton foreign entanglement and that he doesn't believe in nation building.

You're also wrong (via numbers) on tax and spend vs. tax cut and spend cut. Conservatives, starting with ronald reagan, have cut taxes but at the same time racked up massive deficits, larger than Clinton or Carter. Thanks to Perot, Clinton years compared to Bush/Reagan look fiscally astute. You can claim that the wars were necessary but please, spare me the fiscally conservative line. It is an outright falsehood.

By the way, if you want to explain stagflation and the fight in the 70s/80s, I will. Neither party really is to blame, it fooled all the economists.

hey um birds.. this isn't really the place for that. All I wanted to see was reasons for the bush vote. that's it.


now we're gonna see another thread disintegrate into a rep vs dem fight. thanks.

I am not a party tickett man. Usually I vote democrat when I feel internal affairs needs attention and rebublican for tuff over sea's stance is needed. This election we needed both very badly. I voted Bush because I fear the radical muslims the most.

I voted Bush because Michael Moore told me not to. Voting for Kerry would have put me on the same side of too many folks I wouldn't want on my team.

Seriously, though, it was 9/11 and Iraq. Kerry just didn't reassure me in strong enough terms that he would see things through to a successful conclusion. Maybe Bush won't be able to as well but I know he's going to continue to give it all he's got. Also, there's something perversely beneficial about having a leader that the rest of the world thinks is a crazy man.

Heh @ Bash. Yeah, having Chirac dislike Bush would be reason enough for me to vote Republican.

Because though I disagree with with a great many of Bush's policies, I know where he stands. Kerry, I have no clue, what he does tomorrow might completely contradict what he did today. Though Bush's economic policies are tremendously flawed, Kerry's are even worse. Though I disagree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, I feel that the country is safer under Bush than Kerry. Obviously there are many more reasons, but those are three of the main ones.

Sorry Fern, it's just interesting to highlight some reasoning that is markedly factually inaccurate.

Birdseye wrote:Clinton years compared to Bush/Reagan look fiscally astute.

Not thanks to Perot. Thanks to Gingrich and the Contract With America. With the GOP in charge in the Congress, fiscal discipline arose. Clinton claimed credit for it, but that was his strength, to see which way the wind was going to blow anyway and get out in front of it. He laid claim to many ideas that were incubated in GOP strategy halls. Well, so what? On some things he DID work with Republicans and passed bipartisan bills that did some good, so he deserves a slice of the credit. Kudos to him, but kudos also to the GOP in Congress.

Welfare Reform a Democratic idea? That's uproariously laughable. Balanced budgets a Democratic idea? Same. The one place in his record where Kerry deserved credit he didn't get was being one of the first Dems to agree with the mass of Republicans on the need for balancing the budget. Problem is, his way of getting there was too thin on defense, in my view.

War is ungodly expensive. As much as Reagan spent, HIS STRATEGY WON THE COLD WAR. Seems like a bargain to me.

Meanwhile, Reagan had a Democratic House the whole time. Congress is where the real power lies. The President is the most influential leader, but there are limits on his power.

You can talk theory about the 70's. I can talk experience. Who am I going to believe? You? Or my own eyes? I remember what candidate Carter talked about. I remember that his party had control of both House and Senate. I remember what a disaster it was, and I remember that it did not turn around until President Reagan's policies went into effect.

If Dems want to come anywhere close to claiming that President Clinton "created" 20 million jobs, they must first admit that President Reagan rescued our nation from a tailspin both domestically and abroad. NOT ONE nation went Communist on Reagan's watch. Many did so during Carter's much shorter reign.


Birds, I'll concede your point about nation building. Bush flipped on that issue. However, the Dems want to claim that one both ways. They say the President is incapable of factoring new information and adapting his views. If so, then he'd have stubbornly stuck to his original campaign position instead of adjusting. At least Bush can point to September 11 as a valid reason for change. However, look at all the campaign promises that he did keep: tax cuts, education bill, energy bill (the Senate stymied that), boosting our defenses, capping discretionary spending, shortening the length of the recession he found himself in (a promise made once his term started), and more.

To point to one or two issues where he didn't come through ONLY SUPPORTS MY POINT. Carter delivered on almost nothing, and where he did, it only made things worse. I said I voted for the man I most believed in. I didn't say I believe every word coming out of President Bush's mouth. It's not about who is right, but about who is right the most often. President Carter's biggest and best achievement, and the one for which he deserves high praise, was brokering peace between Egypt and Israel. But the Iran fiasco still put him into the red, net, on foreign policy. His inaction made us look weak, and it emboldened our enemies.

A lot of positions now spouted by Democrats were GOP positions. Yet because the electorate keeps leaning to the right, either with the Presidency or (during Clinton) with the Congress, so the center of the electorate and thus the debate has steadily shifted to the right. You should have heard what it was like to listen to Democrats in the 70's and 80's. Dems today have tried to follow Clinton's example and claim Republican ideas as their own, but to offer "Republican Lite" versions. Sometimes that works, mostly not.

The country has been on a steady shift, an active political realignment, since Carter's Presidency. That much you cannot deny.

I won't deny that Bush has made mistakes. The lack of WMD is a whopper. However, EVERYBODY got that one wrong, including France and Russia. The leaders in Egypt and Jordan were telling us he had the weapons. Putin himself told Bush that the Russians believed he had the weapons. The UN believed it. In the wake of September 11, the USA needed a new level of assurance that Hussein would NOT supply WMD to terrorists and he was given a chance to comply. He stuck with the same old deception games, and that became his downfall. Perhaps you missed the part of David Kay's report that concluded that despite the lack of weapons stockpiles, that the greater than understood level of instability within the regime made them MORE dangerous than Bush had said, not less.


No worries, Ferno. I won't be party to burning down your thread. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I hope you found my original answer informative.


- Sirian

bush cuts my taxes and keeps me from worrying about terrorist attacks. i live down the road from lockheed martin and to think its not on someones hit list is foolish. but with bush in office i dont worry about it too much. if kery got elected, i would have moved.

Top Gun says: "I agree with Bush's stance on moral issues, specifically cloning, abortion, and stem-cell research."

Then you sir, are a ludite. And I suggest the most appropriate thing you could do is amble your fat ass over to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia and join your like minded equals who also consider progress to be inherently evil.


Ooooh - that's right - you don't need to go anywhere to be with other equally myopic and insular little minds do you - cause you're busy helping turn the US into a healthy little theocracy of its own!

Hooray. Another example of mindless vitriol from the left.

ROFL, the Limey n00b comes in and starts talking smack. Whatever shall we do?

P.S. If you think the issues I mentioned represent meaningful "human progress," then you are gravely mistaken. If anything, they represent ethical decline. But this debate is for another thread, so if you want to continue it in an intelligent and respectful fashion, start one. If not, be a good n00b and STFU.

That may be true Birds. but I just want to read the reasons the bush voters have. So far it's been pretty interesting.


Sirian, i actually did. I have read both of your responses thouroughly and they're quite informative to say the least.


Contact, heed this advice: please do not start a flamewar in this thread or we'll lose a good discussion.

What? Did you not know that Contact was gay?

Contact wrote:you don't need to go anywhere to be with other equally myopic and insular little minds

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt

Birds wrote:Conservatives, starting with ronald reagan, have cut taxes but at the same time racked up massive deficits... spare me the fiscally conservative line. It is an outright falsehood.

Brian, let's take a step back. You're a moderator here now, and you've come a long way from when I first got to know you. I can see that you've been through a lot of debates here at DBB and perhaps elsewhere and you have grown considerably through the process. I respect that.

Our history together has always been edgy and competitive. There's something about being pushed to my absolute limit in D2 Athena to overcome the eight points you won off me from spew guarding for me to win the match anyway in overtime, and something equally compelling about my strategic mistake of going for the shield orbs first instead of the spreadfire cannon first in Black Rose, and losing the match over that. It was a fitting changing of the guard. You simply wanted it more on that day. We've armwrestled in the trenches, in the mines, in the fields and on the boards. There's a kind of respect I hold for you that few have earned, and I get the sense that you feel something on that order as well.

We have both said and done things to wrong the other, and yet we have always held enough forgiveness and understanding to remain friends, more or less. At least rivals with an honest mutual respect. Some things have changed for me, though. You should not expect me to roar out at you in the same old way.

I'm glad to see you moderating my old forum. I can think of no one else who might possibly care more for this place. Not to leave out Lothar and the other stewards, of course.

"Spare me the (fill in the blank type of) line." Wow, that sounds so familiar. Eek, it sounds like me. I've made that sort of jab too many times. It can shut down the weak, bowl over the foolish, but I have come to realize that it doesn't serve me well.

I've posted a few such lines in the last week. Mostly, though, I have caught them and erased them before posting. When emotions run high, it's an easy thing to do, to ride it out and throw one's weight around.

I have found that it is good practice to show respect to political opponents. To say "Senator Kerry" and "President Carter" and "President Clinton" and "Vice President Gore". I don't always, but sometimes when I don't, I go back later and look at it, and wish that I had. Poisoning my remarks hurts me most of all, and doesn't do anybody else any good either. Looking at remarks like Contact made in this thread, it's easy to see to see the malice. The more veiled forms of hostility can be harder to weed out. Jabs can be clever but they are rarely effective at building understanding. So these day I make different choices.


You said that I ignored your economic position. Yet I must ask you straight up, why should I respond? When you say things like "spare me the fiscally conservative line", it sounds as if you think you have already heard and rejected anything I might say, and that you are dug in in a partisan fashion where I will only be beating on the wall. You don't intend to let me in.

If that is how you feel, I do not intend to beat on the wall. That won't do either of us any good.

Birds wrote:Conservatives, starting with ronald reagan, have cut taxes but at the same time racked up massive deficits... spare me the fiscally conservative line. It is an outright falsehood.

Nothing in politics is ever quite that simple. I have an answer for you. The question I ask is, do you care? Will it be worth anything to you? Or should we skip straight to the conclusion that we have no chance to understand each other and save us the trouble of growling back and forth?


- Sirian

Top gun: "If you think the issues I mentioned represent meaningful "human progress," then you are gravely mistaken. If anything, they represent ethical decline."

um, er - in a word - incorrect! You are mistaken if you think human progress is only measured ethically.

"...if you want to continue it in an intelligent and respectful fashion, start one. If not, be a good n00b and STFU."

respectful huh? Would that be the same respect you showed with your STFU comment?

i will say what i wish unto who i choose - so sod off you numpty.

and with regards to my nationality - you're jumping to assumptions, just as you do with the big picture of human progress - and the results in both instances are as equally impressive

The biggest reason I "didn't vote for Kerry" was personal. I have spent my entire adult life defending the Constitution and to see him go to Vietnam and then come back here AS a Naval officer and spit on everything I believe in is just a little too much for me to accept. It's fine that he has a strong opinion about what happened to him. His rights as a citizen to speak out are guaranteed like everyone else's. But don't come to me 30 years later when it is convenient and try to say he was a war hero after he renounced it. If he has a belief or an opinion, so be it, but don't pander please. I would have been sick to my stomach if I had awakened on Nov 3rd with Senator Kerry as my soon to be boss. I may not agree with everything the President does, but at least I know where I stand with the guy. Kerry is a worm as far as I'm concerned. He broke a code that many military people believe in very deeply and it was offensive to me. A lot of the other reasons here I also agree with about the war and such. I'm not religious though so I don't care about any of that crap. Sorry this was so long......

I must defend President Clinton, here. There is no way he could have done more about terrorism. His political enemies would have shredded him had he tried.

In order to learn from mistakes, the mistakes have to be made in the first place. Did President Clinton make mistakes? With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that he did. However, it is neither fair nor useful to leap from there to blame.

Nor did Clinton squander the peace dividend. With the GOP taking over the Congress in 1994, Clinton's vision of huge government health care died on the vine. Other spending was fairly reasonable. We did get rid of the deficit and we did pay off some small parts of the debt.

Money controls everything. Money is the resource that we have to apply toward our priorities, and there are always competing priorities. The whole point of the government is to put the decision-making power in terms of priorities into FEW ENOUGH hands to get things done, but not TOO FEW lest corruption and despotism take hold. That is always a balancing act, and it is why a strong Republic may be better in the end than a strict Democracy.

We should not point fingers over the terrorism issue. Until Al Qaeda broke through with their successful strikes on 9/11, we did not take them seriously. We never would have taken them seriously. This is just one of those unfortunate things where there could not ever have been a political will until the NEED for action became perfectly clear.


The important thing now is not to repeat our mistakes, and that is one thing Americans are rather good at: learning our lessons and improving our situation. That certain other cultures around the world do NOT seem to learn the lessons of their mistakes can be disheartening, but we can't worry too much about that, either. Let's just move on already.


- Sirian

Since Ferno has wanted to keep this thread on track, I've split the economic argument into a new thread. I saw Sirian's post after, so if you want to add any of that into the new thread feel free. Let's try to keep the topic now back on why people voted for Bush

The only reason I didn't vote for Kerry, is because I'm too young. My Dad, however, voted for Kerry even though he commented on how nice Laura looked.
After studying the two parties, I'm definitely going to be a Democrat.
Bettina

Hostile wrote:The biggest reason I "didn't vote for Kerry" was personal. I have spent my entire adult life defending the Constitution and to see him go to Vietnam and then come back here AS a Naval officer and spit on everything I believe in is just a little too much for me to accept. It's fine that he has a strong opinion about what happened to him. His rights as a citizen to speak out are guaranteed like everyone else's. But don't come to me 30 years later when it is convenient and try to say he was a war hero after he renounced it. If he has a belief or an opinion, so be it, but don't pander please. I would have been sick to my stomach if I had awakened on Nov 3rd with Senator Kerry as my soon to be boss. I may not agree with everything the President does, but at least I know where I stand with the guy. Kerry is a worm as far as I'm concerned. He broke a code that many military people believe in very deeply and it was offensive to me. A lot of the other reasons here I also agree with about the war and such. I'm not religious though so I don't care about any of that crap. Sorry this was so long......

Well Said!!!!!!

Hostile wrote:The biggest reason I "didn't vote for Kerry" was personal. I have spent my entire adult life defending the Constitution and to see him go to Vietnam and then come back here AS a Naval officer and spit on everything I believe in is just a little too much for me to accept. It's fine that he has a strong opinion about what happened to him. His rights as a citizen to speak out are guaranteed like everyone else's. But don't come to me 30 years later when it is convenient and try to say he was a war hero after he renounced it. If he has a belief or an opinion, so be it, but don't pander please. I would have been sick to my stomach if I had awakened on Nov 3rd with Senator Kerry as my soon to be boss. I may not agree with everything the President does, but at least I know where I stand with the guy. Kerry is a worm as far as I'm concerned. He broke a code that many military people believe in very deeply and it was offensive to me. A lot of the other reasons here I also agree with about the war and such. I'm not religious though so I don't care about any of that crap. Sorry this was so long......

Long? Have you never seen one of Drakona's posts? This was but a mere footnote

contact wrote:um, er - in a word - incorrect! You are mistaken if you think human progress is only measured ethically.

Very incorrect, most human progress has resulted from wars. Most wars have been over religion.

oops, topic...I didn't vote. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry, and I sure wouldn't vote for a religious freak, so I stayed home.

Testiculese wrote:Most wars have been over religion.

[derail]
Religion has played a major factor in most wars, but it hasn't been the main cause of most wars. For instance, take the crusades. The scum of society were the primary actors in the cursades. These were the people that thought they could cut an arab's throat and get money for it. The crusades took a religious nature because, for one thing, Christendom (note I said Christendom, NOT Christianity) was the dominant force in pretty much everything at the time. The best way to get money without having to work for it was to kill someone and take theirs. Therefore, people combined the two ideas, and came up with the idea of killing someone because of their religion, claiming it was "false". The Inquisition worked somewhat in the same manner.

Most wars have been caused by people who, seeing how worked up people get when their religion is brought up, decided to use religion as a pretext for going to war. See the last 2,000 years for reference.
[/derail]

Test, why do you call Bush a "religious freak?" He's no more religious than any other Christian is. I don't see why people get all worked up about separation of church and state anyway. If a Christian got elected, he must represent the will of the majority, and therefore the majority must not hate the idea of a Christian making laws.

Long? Have you never seen one of Drakona's posts? This was but a mere footnote

Well it was long for me heh!!

no religion discussions.. please...

I seriously question the validity of any person who claims they get all their orders from a god. Most serial killers claim the same thing.

Something else I thought. A lot of people blindy vote the party they've been affiliated with for generations. I've heard the line 'voting Democrat because my daddy did' or 'We've been Republican for 35 years'. I'm sure The Lemming Vote was just as alive this round as usual.

That and no one liked Kerry.



(The Crusades were sparked by priests and kings.)

Topgun: You are so wonderfully free from the ravages of intelligence.

Stem cell research is one of the most important lines of inquiry on the planet today. It has more potential to reduce human suffering than any other scientific endeavour. If the USA continues to ban it then you'll lose trillions of dollars in the long run.

If abortion is bad, why would a human female self-abort 80% of all pregnancies? Fertilised eggs are NOT human beings - do the research. Religious arguments hold no water here as this is a biology question, not a faith issue. If you're anti abortion, I hope like hell you have NEVER jacked off, because if so, you're a murderer!

As far as human cloning goes, it is essentially impossible with today's technology, but even if it were possible, it is not a threat to you, or anybody else.

Mobius you are so sanctimoniously and self-righteously elite that you probably qualify to be a democrat in high standing...right up there with Barbara Streistand. And they are desperately recruiting voters over here, even from the dregs of society so I bet even you stand a chance for a place at the trough.

Now that Mobius has posted, I'm suddenly pro-abortion.

The idea that the US has banned stem cell research is a myth. There are more shipments of stem cells available from the funding-qualified stem lines than researchers appear to need or want. Further, if that isn't enough for some researchers there is nothing preventing research using private or state funding.

You can argue about the amount of funding the Bush administration is providing, but claiming there is a ban makes you either ignorant or dishonest.