If you're invested in right-wing America or if you are the kind of person
who is willing to believe that such things as 'supported blah blah'
constitutes an 'accomplishment', then yes, it's quite an impressive list.
I think it's very positive how despite all the stress he must be under,
getting so many Americans killed & all, that he has managed even so to
stay in recovery & not be the drunken cokehead he was in college.
-paghat the ratgirl
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
" I think it's very positive how despite all the stress he must be under,
getting so many Americans killed & all, that he has managed even so to stay
in recovery & not be the drunken cokehead he was in college."
Or has he? He looks like a drunken cokehead to me.
I don't think its as simple as all that, though a lot of people would
like to paint it that way.
I haven't seen many of the anti-Bush crowd say they honestly felt that
Kerry was going to be their shining knight leading the world into a
peaceful and prosperous future. One major indicator of this is that I
haven't seen ANY anguish over Kerry missing his chance to lead. Most
people that supported him did so because he was not-Bush, and they're
now complaining because Bush is still in power, not that Kerry isn't.
In much the same way many people that supported Bush didn't see Kerry
as a viable alternative. I'm not going to go around and say I really
really like Bush, though I don't doubt there are those that do. IMO
Kerry would not do as good a job dealing with all the issues of the
day. Not much of an endorsement of our political process I'm afraid,
but its the one we have.
You'd think that most gardeners would be nature lovers, yet there are
some that chop down their trees and rip up their shrubs and put lawns
in their place. There's all sorts of gardeners
I don't feel its correct that the Bush administration is openly
hostile to the environment, but I won't present a lot of arguments
against that here. There is more to this then just big business vs
the environment and should be a topic all on its own.
I also don't believe that a population that junks up things the way we
do really deep down cares as much about it as they say they do. The
environment is a lot closer then the arctic or the nearest rainforest
-- its right outside the door.
IMO the whole issue needs to be reopened to decide what is right and
what is wrong, and what we can do to preserve the environment. We
will never be able to go back to they way things were, and we need to
create policies and make plans that are rational, achievable, and able
to work in the world we have. I don't think that's really been done
since the 70s, but it would be a hard thing to do. There just seems
to be too much anger around for that to happen.
Yes, we are just like everybody else. I think Bush is proud of being
an American, and is disappointed that we don't have more support
around the world, but I really haven't seen that "we are better then
everyone else" attitude.
He has the attitude that he is going to do what he thinks is right,
and to hell with what the rest of the world wants. that's not the
same thing, but I can see how that could create that perception. I
don't know of any other reason you would feel this way.
Again I don't see it.
Your views and beliefs have the same weight as any christians, and
your vote counts just as much. But all people have to make their
decisions based on their beliefs, whether they are atheists or
christians. Some of the arguments I've had are with posters that seem
to imply christians should check their beliefs at the door and act as
de facto atheists. People can't do that and shouldn't. Everyone has
to work within their beliefs and do what they feel is right.
Religion has always been part of the political process, but this is
the first time that I can recall it being an object of fear. There
are no laws being passed that promote christianity as the state
religion, and I sincerely believe this is a misguided fear.
I don't doubt that I'll be flamed again, but I don't mind. :)
I'm not much of a communicator, so I don't know if I've answered your
questions. My main point has been that things aren't as black and
white as some are trying to make them. Few voted for Bush because
they are mean, evil, racist, stupid, ignorant or just love to be at
I don't agree with some of the things you have concerns about, but
you've been one of the few that have actually tried to have a rational
discussion about any of these topics. You asked some reasonable
questions, you didn't shout or insult me, and I attempted to reply in
kind. At least I hope I did.
There are far too many lines drawn in the sand, too much anger and
intolerance, and too many people that aren't willing to listen.
The WAYS in which Bush is hostile to the environment are often too
complicated to fit into your typical TV news story, and probably too complex
for your average walkin' around slob to understand. Example:
"Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered
Never mind concerns about eating such crops. That's probably the least risky
part of the issue. What do you personally know about the other risks?
There's another take, but it's only slightly different.
1) Bush's energy policy was hacked together using advisors whose identity he
has kept secret. However, this is OK. You can rest assured that even though
these advisors were probably the CEOs of major utilities, they have your
best interests at heart. The reason for the secrecy is very simple: They're
busy guys, and they were afraid of being inundated with thank-you notes from
people like you and I.
2) The fact that Bush won't discuss who advises him is not indicative of
evil. Rather, you are expected to have complete faith in him. Like the
emperor of Japan, Bush has a direct connection to a deity.
3) The fact that the fish you catch are probably loaded with mercury isn't
important. You're probably too busy to take them home and cook them anyway.
You should be more concerned about the health of coal-burning utilities in
This is all pretty simple.
Thank you for your reply. I think I am beginning to understand. It appears
that you value leadership and authenticity above other issues when you are
choosing a president. It appears that you don't give much weight to any
specific issue but are looking at the candidates as businessmen and not much
more. You want a president who can run the business of the nation and not
looking for someone to advance some sort of moral or political agenda. I
think I can wrap my head around that.
Is your lack of emotional attachment because you have not been negatively or
positively affected by the government? Is it because your personal
interests are more paramount to you than some abstract concept of
For me, I cringe every time I see Bush's face because I fear his power. He
has the ability to create a hostile atmosphere for gays in this country; he
has the power to ruin our national park system which I hold dear; he has the
power to give government control over what I see, hear, and say. And he has
taken steps to do all of the above.
I also worry deeply about the plight of the poor in our great country. I
see a huge divide between the haves and the have-nots. With a church every
two miles, why does America have homeless, or children who die from
starvation? Where are all the christians and what are they doing about it?
Is organized religion just a social club?
I cannot look at the two candidates and say there is not much difference
because for me, there is a huge difference. And it mainly has to do with
how power is used. I understand the argument that John Kerry was no Bill
Clinton. Yes, I agree and I wanted Howard Dean myself. I liked Dean for
some of the same reasons you liked Bush. He appears to be a talented leader
willing to make the tough choices and he appears to be authentic. Kerry was
just another Washington insider.
However, I believe Kerry would use the power of the presidency in a more
responsible manner. He believes the constitution is an incredibly important
and well designed document as do I. Bush seems to think that the
constitution is a hindrance to his personal beliefs and has tried in several
frightening ways to remove citizens rights instead of protecting them. Bush
also forces his religious beliefs on the entire country by nominating
religiously conservative judges, by preventing abortion clinics from
receiving federal funds, and by preventing teachers from giving kids the
facts about sex. I could go on for days about my dislikes for Bush's
leadership style but others have posted great links which summarize it
better than I ever could.
I guess the difference between us is that I feel much more personally
affected by the president's power. If you feel up to it, would you expand a
little on why you don't. I think that is the hardest thing for me to
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.