How can you justify voting Bush?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Instead of fighting over and about oil all our minds should be on one goal. That is to find an alternative way of transport that does not require the oil or maybe only a small percentage of it.

We need to develop a transportation system that forces our people out of their autos. Notice how we continue to build interstate lanes and two years later those lanes are filled up? My way of doing things would be to quit building the lanes and let the traffic come to a standstill. Then maybe people might look for mass transport.

Oil is a polluter and has no real use on this planet.




posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonsOfLiberty
Hmmm, we helped Saddam (Iraq) against Ayatollah Komanei (Iran) because Saddam was the lesser of two evils, at the time. We helped the mujahideen (Afghanistan) against the communists (Soviet Union) because it was the lesser of two evils at the time.


Why the help then?? There are so many other countries in the world who would need the US's help? We help when money tells us to help... We probably won't go help a country where there's no money to make. There are many countries in Africa ruled by dictators but, the US government won't do anything about it...why? Because there is no need to spend money for a country which won't be profitable for us...



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I justify voting for George Bush for several reasons:

1. His stance on abortion
2. His stance on gay rights
3. His stance on national defense
4. I agree with the war on Iraq just because of how much it has helped the Iraqi people as a whole. I've talked to many of my friends who are in Iraq and they can't believe the horrible media attention the war on Iraq is getting. We don't see the positive aspect of the war on Iraq and how it has freed a people.

Things I don't like about Bush:
1. Economic agenda (trickle down effect)
2. His stance on Education



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by riouxda

Originally posted by SonsOfLiberty
Hmmm, we helped Saddam (Iraq) against Ayatollah Komanei (Iran) because Saddam was the lesser of two evils, at the time. We helped the mujahideen (Afghanistan) against the communists (Soviet Union) because it was the lesser of two evils at the time.


Why the help then?? There are so many other countries in the world who would need the US's help? We help when money tells us to help... We probably won't go help a country where there's no money to make. There are many countries in Africa ruled by dictators but, the US government won't do anything about it...why? Because there is no need to spend money for a country which won't be profitable for us...


Let's try this again. As Sonsof Liberty pointed out, it was during the Cold War that we aided Iraq, Hussein in particular. It was not about oil, no more than any other country aided by us during that period. It was us against them, and wherever they attempted to spread, we attempted to throw up obstacles. We contained and bled them financially. During the Reagan years the Cold War efforts were escalated so that we could deplete the Soviets financial ability to continue their efforts. It worked.
Where are you getting your askewed version of history? How old are you?
Do you understand that there is a difference between being distributors of a product and being teh ones in control of the product? OPEC is in control of the oil production, they set the price and they sell it. Iraq has been with OPEC, has not been part of America. The oil pumped in Iraq now is controlled by OPEC prices as well. When everything is back to normal there, it will still be owned by the Iraqis, not the Americans, and we will still be in the same position we were beforehand. Making your assumptions and allegations does not in the least change the world reality.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The question is not how one can justify voting for Bush, but how to justify voting for the alternative.

The war on terror is something with no alternative either. We either fight it or we bleed to death.


To what end, Thomas? Just like the never ending war on drugs. The never ending war on poverty. The never ending war on hunger. War perpetuates itself. And it's fueled by the mindless human desire for weapons.

Drugs, poverty, hunger and terrorism isn't going ANYWHERE. It's all probably as old as the human race is because it is distinctly human. There is no escaping it, so we're stuck with it...



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Yeah, you're right, Thorfin. Why fight? Let's just let them blow up what they want. Hell, why let them have all the fun, let's blow up some stuff, too.

As far as the War on Drugs, that is a multi-faceted issue that would require its own thread.

As far as hunger and poverty, yes, we have poured billions in the war on poverty and people are still poor. The war was fought with handouts, killing self esteem and drive. Seems like it was intentionally fought that way so it would fail. But hey! It makes a great political issue every four years, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I'm with you Thomas.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I really have nothing against my Democratic buddies around here, but I think they may be a bit too nice for their own good.

We need to provide the opportunity and the fairness that is spoken about in the Constitution. That is the reason for the government.

It is not to promote social sustinance, but rather to encourage and foster the ability to flourish whether or not that chance is taken.

The truth is, is that no matter what happens, someone will starve, and someone will be lazy, etc, etc, etc.

We can not help that. What we need is comprehensive community programs done through the LOWEST LEVEL POSSIBLE. This would encourage involvement and foster a more family mentality.

There lies the change both sides want.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
You are so right, Sir. We citizens (tax payers) want that, whether we actually think about it. Both sides of the political machines do not want that, though. One side needs the problem to persist so that they may have a point to drive home to the politically unconcerned, those who see politics and current events as a peripheral distraction, not ones to actually observe. In other words, the DNC aims their scare tactics toward the knee-jerk Joe 6packs!





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join