bizzwire-
There are others answering the questions on why TO vote Bush better than I can in this thread.
Concerning my misinterpretation of the data in the NY Sun, I agree: I was mistaken and made some erroneous judgements based on those suppositions. Due to that error, a mod is more than welcome to close this thread, if deemed appropriate.
I will TRY to keep this short. If Kerry really intends to “bring back” the truth to government, I say bring it on. We’ve had enough half truths and outright lies. We’ve had enough of people who can only get in office by smearing others and hiding their own dishonest pasts. We don’t need someone who will jump for war, even though they themselves hid in a “champagne unit” or “had other priorities” when it was their turn in the barrel. Wars are serious business and should be only the absolute last resort. We’ve had enough of the fascistic notion that patriotism = blind obedience. That one really ticks me off. It ticks me off to know that people are being laid off and outsourced, while the suits rake in the bucks from sweetheart deals and tax laws that favor only them, and then after they have fed on a company, they get crooked stock deals, obscene parachutes and golden handshakes. I know plenty of suits personally, and they are NOT worth their salaries. “My” U.S.A. is supposed to be the good guys. We are supposed to be an example of what is possible, in a positive way. We used to be the ones that were admired, or at least sort of respected. When our friends become afraid of us instead of being afraid for us, it’s a hell of a note.
Thanks for the pointer, but I’m not asking them, I’m asking You. Please… in your own words (no copying from your cited thread, either!) answer the question.
Is it just me, or does the above link take one to pop-up hell?
Botched coding. Not sure why it would take you to popup hell, since the link is correct, just with an extra http:// in it…trythis.
ok…link works, but you’re still missing (or evading) my point. I’m simply asking you to enumerate everything that President Bush has actually done; tangible deeds, actions, or legislation that you think helps the country and/or the average citizen. I’m not interested in things like “direction,” “moral tone,” or other amorphous, feel-good will o’ the wisps.
I’ll get you started:
“Well, President Bush backed a tax cut that netted me $600”
“Now my Grandma has over 70 prescription drug plans to choose from.”
Get the picture?
Lord, no kidding!
The OP is very similar to the question “have you stopped molested neighborhood children, yet?”
In other words, a question based on a flawed premise; it’s not worth answering.
Mocking the questioner is worthwhile, however!
DirkGntly you’re a :wally!
Gack! I just realized, too late, that this is Great Debates and not the Pit.
If my putzing is out of line, I apologize!
Yeah…I think that symbol is verboten to apply to other posters in Great Debates.
So, I will instead give the OP a backhanded compliment: You have managed to produce a Great Debate argument that is so lacking in merit that I am in agreement with basically everything that John Mace has said in it. You are truly a uniter and not a divider in just the sense that your candidate George W has been.
Alas, I fear that might not be true 
:
although some of our recently banned quests have done so.
bizzwire,
I wasn’t trying to avoid your discussion, merely trying to avoid clogging up the Boards with redundant info - however, here’s how I see it:
Yes, I very much enjoyed getting $600 of my own money back. How wonderful! Like having a non-interest-bearing savings account…just like the tax refund I usually get every year because I’ve paid too much in and the gov’t has had the use of my money for a year, interest-free. Gotta love that.
How much could GWB do before Sept. 11, 2001? He was in office all of, gee, 8 months, working on his social agenda before we got way-laid by that Islamo-fascist sucker-punch. He’s been pretty focused on that ever since, pretty much out of necessity. The social programs were put on the back-burner, and honestly, I think the fact that he even got the tax breaks through in 8 months was a minor miracle because of the resistance he was receiving in Washington. Additionally, I don’t look for what he has done FOR me - rather, what he has done to more or less leave me the heck alone.
You’re essentially asking me if I’m better off than I was four years ago. No, I am not - financially I am (for now), but I’m not better off. I travel for a living and my job is a LOT more difficult now because of what has happened with security, etc. since 9/11/01 - but that’s hardly Bush’s fault. In fact, since I voted for him last time based on the majority of his social agenda, I will vote for him again for similar reasons, “war on terror” notwithstanding.
I’ll take this to mean “sweet fuck-all”. I admire your candor. If all that this administration has to offer after 4 years in office is its record on the “War on Terror,” how can you say he’s doing a good job when terrorist activity has increased under his watch? 3 years after 9/11 (which is pretty much the sum total of the RNC’s message) the main architect remains at large while the administration crows about its capture of some pissant despot who had nothing to do with it! You call this doing a good job?
Can I ask you if you still believe America is a positive force?
Note the strong opinions of two Brits in this thread, plus Blair’s refusal to accept a medal from Bush:
‘TONY Blair has snubbed George Bush’s pleas to fly to the US and pick up his “war medal” ahead of the Presidential elections.’
‘Number 10 is desperate to finally end Mr Blair’s Iraq nightmare - which saw his personal poll rating plunge to all-time low.
Labour also suffered heavily at the ballot box over the conflict taking massive hits in the local and European elections.’
If Bush is making the US massively unpopular, why do you want him to continue?
Dirk,
Sorry to be direct… you talk like Bush should be some kind of cult leader. Non beleivers not welcome ! If people don’t beleive in the “religion”/country then they aren’t good enough to join. Those who don’t vomit the patriotic nonsense are on the wrong side… any poll around the world (except Sharon the Wall’s Israel) will tell you that Bush is viewed as making the USA a negative force in the world. Just maybe that is true… but of course to even contemplate thinking about that possibility would make you unpatriotic in your view.
Naturally I might be guilty of something similar… after all the religious right hypocrites and the corporate interests back Bush… and since I don’t like them I don’t back Bush. Even then I don’t support Bush for what he has done… not his backers.
The last time in Brazil that we had this "Love your country or leave it" was during a US backed Military dictatorship... take heed. This kind of internal "shutting up" of opinion doesn't lead to more democracy.I dunno about that; he seems to be able to spend a fair chunk of time in Crawford, Texas
No doubt brainstorming on how to keep people employed and insured
Obviously I can’t speak for DirkGntly, but I will pre-emptively assume their reposnse will be (from page 1):
To which I can only add: “…and other times, the unpopular stance turns out to be the WRONG stance.”
LilShieste
And, as a corollary, might I add that “simply saying that the wrong stance is right doesn’t necessarily make it so?”
It speaks volumes about how things have been handled for the last 3-4 years, that we even need a corollary like that - which states the “seemingly” obvious. 
For DirkGntly et al.: What would it “take” in order for you to acknowledge that the United States was projecting a negative influence on the rest of the world…?
I agree with the central premise of the belief that the unpopular stance is sometimes the correct one. I agree that sometimes you might just have to “barrel on through”. But, in any situation, you should give heed to the input of others, especially friends/allies – usually, your friends are your friends because they’re interested (in some way, shape, or form) in your well-being; so they aren’t going to be trying to slip you up.
I, personally, think that the United States is more a negative influence in the world today, than positive. We essentially told a lot of our key allies (read: friends) that they didn’t know what they were talking about - we knew best - and that they were either “with us or against us.” And when we proceeded with our stubborn invasion, and it turned out that our allies were correct, we didn’t issue an apology or anything. I tell you what, the “friendships” between the U.S. and some of our “key allies” reminds me of some catty friendships I saw during junior high school-- and suffice it to say, those “friendships” never made it to high school (and later) because of one party’s arrogant stubborness.
LilShieste