Tell a third generation European blue collar worker the same and I wonder what the reaction would be.
If Bush has done the same things anyone else would have, than why not vote for him?
If you’re honestly saying that you’ve not been able to understand why people support Bush’s actions, you’ve either A) been living under a rock, B) are droolingly stupid or C) have made no effort to find out.
I consider A and B unlikely. Actually I consider C unlikely, too; I rather suspect that it has been explained to you and you just didn’t agree or find it convincing. Which is fine, but if that’s the case it’s rather disingenous to carry on with the “no-one’s ever told me” bit.
If you really honestly want a full explanation, read this. Please note that it is not identical with my own ideas; to the extent that I do support the current policy it is because I have not heard any credible, concrete alternatives. If you know of one, please reopen this thread.
I don’t accept your ABC’s. Nobody has shown me what Bush has done to get Bin Laden and his ilk (9/11) that the others (Gore and Kerry were mentioned) wouldn’t have done. Nor have you, BTW.
I’ll look at your links tomorrow.
There seems to be a common thread among Bush supporters (and I know this is a generalization, so spare me). They’re afraid of the terrorist threat, and they’re pissed at the terrorists who so horribly struck at us.
Because of this, the most arrogant, mendacious and downright radical administration since who-knows-when is given a free pass while they do to the American economy and government what a six-year-old does with an Etch-a-Sketch—shake it until there’s nothing recognizable left.
Strip away the fear and anger of 9/11, and Bush’s presidency is revealed for what it is: a litany of assaults on the fabric of American life that flies in the face of what the majority of Americans have consistently said they believe in.
• Most people believe that the government should continue to fund and maintain Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and they consistently say they do not want tax cuts that jeopardize the future of these programs. Guess what y’all are getting, and on purpose too?
• Most people believe environmental protections are necessary and that corporations who pollute should be held accountable. The Bush administration has gutted the EPA, staffed it with energy-industry lobbyists, and made pollution requirements either absurdly slack or simply ceased enforcing them altogether.
• Most people believe that, whatever their own personal opinions on marriage, the government has no business amending the Constitution to legally disenfranchise a significant portion of American citizens.
• And so on.
Our descendants will read their history books and shake their heads, amazed that the face of American society (to say nothing of Iraq) was redrawn with such ease for the benefit of so few. Or maybe enough people will be able to look past their own fears sufficiently to see a bigger picture; we can only hope.
15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq. So what is our response? Invade Iraq!
Remember 9/11. Vote Bush/Cheney in 2004! Evildoers beware!
So it is what it looks like. You’re scared and pissed, and the fact that GEB went after SOMEBODY is all you really care about. You just wanted to see some death and suffering as payment for ours. Saddam was a good choice cuz he’s a bad guy. So because GW is willing to soothe your desire to see some whooopass coming down, you’ll vote for him.
Excuse me, but this is so horrifyingly depressing I could cry. Or scream. Or both.
You see, I care about dealing with the people who actually harmed us. And as has been pointed out to you pretty clearly, Bush has blown that completely. And made getting it done harder. And actually, his cowboy tactics that are making you feel all warm and safe are actually endangering you further.
But hey, it LOOKS good, and that’s all that really counts, isn’t it?
And there are lots of people who feel just like you. The same people who drive SUVs because they make them feel “safer”, and the endless data proving that SUVs are deathtraps are ignored, because, well, they just look so big and badass that thye make you feel safer. You prefer the illusion to the reality.
Bizarre.
Ummm… because I haven’t tried? FWIW, I agree.
I’m beginning to think comprehension may indeed be the issue here.
No, seriously, *furt. You provided a position paper that made it clear why some people thought the idea of invading Iraq was a good idea. But that still doesn’t address the issue of why people (and I’ve met a number of them) are “thankful” that it was Bush in office rather than Gore after 9/11. Is it because he invaded Iraq? Because as far as I can see, that’s the major difference between the response of Bush and the response of another president would have been.
That’s all well and fine, but as has already been pointed out to you in my post and others, what the hell does any of that have to do with 9/11? Other than to make the terror problem worse of course – which is a whole 'nother thread should you care to find out why.
Again, hard as I might, I am utterly perplexed in trying to figure out your line of reasoning, as well as your claims to being “peaceful.” If one of daughters misbehaves, do you punish her directly, or do you randomly select the one that is most available/convenient?
(bolding mine)
So you say, but you obviously can’t. Please read both, your first sentence and the quotes bellow:
One of the first things that leaves us when we anger is the ability to reason. Add fear and a longing for revenge to the mix, and you end up backing actions such as the invasion of Iraq due to emotions, not reason.
Pretty admirably paradigm – if I may say so myself, I’ve sometimes wished after the fact I could’ve better controlled my emotions as I was rather quick to anger. I’ve found that the passing of the years has been the best therapy for this particular fault of mine.
I thought that was what Afghanistan was all about? Please don’t tell you’re yet someone else that’s forgotten about that particular conflict – not only was it directly connected to 9/11, but it is ongoing and unfinished business mostly due to the misguided Iraq invasion.
Or perchace you feel there wasn’t enough ‘retribution’ involved in the Afghanistan war? Because if that’s the case, I’d think you’d have to agree that you’re not such a peaceful person after all. At least not while your emotions are clouding your reasoning abilities as they appear to be.
Could this be why you’ll be voting for Bush? Emotion over reason. Ever think about it that way?
-Apologies for the gender mix-up.
oh, shit. Sorry for the coding error. :smack:
As punishment for your grave sin, might I suggest you invade Syria?
I would have voted for Gore in 2000 if I had been a citizen and of age then. My views have shifted since.
I probably would vote for Bush if not for his religious aspect. I expect to have a power-hungry bastard - whether a troglodyte, Machiavelli Jr., or something between the two - in the White House; that’s the norm. I do NOT want a leader who ever acts on religious convictions over logic or common sense.
Let’s assume for the moment that Bush had done and said everything he has done and said in office thus far, except that he never mentioned religion. Why would you now vote for him? What has he done that makes you think that he makes a better president than, say, Gore would have? THis is an honest question.
No, I think that to be more in keeping with the current policies, you should execute someone who is also blonde and lives in Trenton.
I stand corrected, you’re right of course. I’ll just add that said blond person in Trenton would preferably not own, or have access to, a computer.
After said execution, I, of course, would feel much better – and you’d be free to continue mucking-up your coding.
Hmmm…I think I’m getting the hang of this.
Vote for Red in '08!
Well, for one thing I doubt that he would have been elected without mentioning religion. 
Honestly, I’d have still voted for Gore today. Gore’s relatively secular and centrist, and Lieberman would be a substantial improvement in the event of Gore’s untimely demise, IMO. The domestic policy would probably be somewhat worse from where I stand, but they wouldn’t have mired us in this Iraq idiocy.
I despise most left-leaning policies and wouldn’t vote for Kerry unless Bush started living up to a few of the conspiracy theories that are in ubiquitous bloom on these boards.
If you despise most left-leaning policies (certainly your privilege), why would you have voted for Gore?
And quite honestly, don’t you think Bush has done a pretty damned good job of living up to some of those conspiracy theories already? As someone on these boards pointed out somewhere (I can’t remember who or where), if someone prior to the Bush administration had predicted the actions of said admin, he would have been laughed out of his tin-foil hat!
To clarify: I despise policies grounded in compassion rather than logic. Gore is (or was then) generally a good deal to the right of Kerry. I wouldn’t be thrilled at the prospect of voting for him, but he’d be a clearly lesser evil.
Who could have Bush’s actions? I’ve read an interesting book about a World War Three scenario unwrapping in 1985. The book was written in 1977. It was perfectly plausible - or would have been until it deviated from reality when it did not predict the overthrow of Pahlavi and the subsequent hostage crisis; Carter gets re-elected, and stuff goes downhill from there. Stuff happens, and we don’t have crystal balls to see it coming. And what Bush has done so far isn’t quite as far-fetched as what some Chicken Littles here scream on a regular basis.
As you get older, you may find that logic, when it comes to predicting end results of policies, is a pretty lousy guide. As human beings, we are spectacularly bad at predicting the results of our own actions.
But, let’s assume for the moment that logic is a better tool than it actually is (for things having to do with people and economics - it’s a terrific tool for assessing the physical and mathematical worlds, and may someday be more useful for guiding human interaction - I am a tremendous fan of logic, but GIGO applies). Logic may suggest a path to get somewhere. It doesn’t determine where you want to go. Logic knows no right and wrong, no good and bad, no desirable and undesirable. It knows only true and false based on the premises provided.
Believe it or not, many left-leaning policies are logical, given the goals they wish to achieve. Well, I should say that many left-leaning proposals are logical - by the time realpolitik gets doen with them, they are usually incomprehensible. You really can’t say so-and-so’s policies are guided by logic and so-and-so’s policies are guided by compassion, because logic is a mechanism and compassion is more of a goal or at least desideratum.
So, I take it that you consider compassion to not be a desideratum. What do you consider a better choice, and why?
On an individual level, compassion can be good or bad, but it is left to individual choice. Many people might feel sympathy for random people they don’t know who face shitty circumstances; I say better them than me, shrug, and go back to browsing forums.
When government acts on compassion (or rather in the direction of Bread and Circuses dressed up as such) it forces everyone to contribute. I say leave it to people who are willing to put their money into their causes. I suppose I’m close to the extreme Libertarian stance on things, though I’d have trouble living up to Rand’s vision of the Rational Man