Final Plea- Is this not enough?

edition.cnn.com...

www.washingtonpost.com...

You would think that this would be the final nail in the coffin, when it comes to support for Bush. How can people still LOGICALLY justify supporting the President in November? These are CIA directors, ambassadors, heads of the military, etc!

This is completely unprecedented in recent political history! All these powerful and infulental people, democrats and republicans, pushing for the removal of a sitting President. I mean, COME ON.

The pundits won't be able to besmirch these people the way they usually do critics of the president. You chronic Bush supporters on ATS won't be able to.

I've seen so many conservatives turning away from Bush. My extremely Republican friend, who hates the Dems, and whose life is politics is swallowing his pride and voting for Kerry, just because he sees the damage this administration is to the country. Why can't you people just shallow your pride, hold your nose and vote for Kerry? Hell, you don't even have to vote for him. Vote independent if you want! Don't vote at all.

Just because you're conservative doesn't mean you have to tote the line and follow the lemmings over the cliff. Think for yourself, think HARD about the last few years and ask yourself if it's worth another four years.

Remember, its not just Bush, Its the whole of his administration who are responsible for the state the country is in right now.

Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Powell, Ridge, etc ... they're as guilty as Bush.

I honestly do not know how many reasons some of these people need to stop supporting Bush. I guess I've gotten a little jaded on the whole American politics thing, some of the neo-cons are rabid.

Pisky's right too though that the whole administration should be held accountable, one could probably lump Tony Blair in there too, but he's not nearly as bad as the Americans.

I wonder why, except to serve their own goals (be they religious, economic or vengence) that people support Bush.

One more thing, America, the rest of the world is actually looking at you crosswise, it's not just the media.

May Common Sense Prevail
~Astral

Why vote Bush? Because he is not Kerry.

Why would I vote for someone that wants to take more of my money and spend it on things that are not important to me?

Why would I want national health care. I work. I pay for my insurance. I see the doctor that I want when I need to. I like a system that rewards the best and brightest people to join the medical field. And they do it to make money.

Why would I want to vote for someone I can't trust to put my nations interests ahead of that of the UN or our "allies". Electing Kerry will not end the threat this country faces, but it sure will be a victory for the people whos mission it is to carry out that threat.

Has Bush got some bad ideas? Sure.

Are my reasons purely selfish? Maybe.

Does Kerry have some good points? Absolutely.

But in the larger scheme of things I find more that works for me with Bush.

And as to the letter that is the point of this thread, I don't think it is as "bipartisan" as you think.

And, by the way, it would interest me to know just what damage, in your opinion, the Bush administration has done to this country. Seriously, I would like to know.

Originally posted by Pisky
Remember, its not just Bush, Its the whole of his administration who are responsible for the state the country is in right now.

Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Powell, Ridge, etc ... they're as guilty as Bush.

wait a minute now, that's a tad short sighted and i'll tell you why.

bush and no president can just wave their hands and poof things just start happening. he also requires approval from the congress and the senate so if we are the blame someone or people for the condition of the country in its current state firstly we must blame all the politicians and then we must blame ourselves for beliving THEIR BS and then voting for them. obviously we made a mistake in voting for ALL of these people (not just bush) and we need to examine why WE as a people allow this to happen to ourselves and our country. is this their fault for screwing us over or is it our for electring them into office in the first place?

the people we put into office or no better than the people who vote for them. myself included.

and we had kerry's buddies sayign not to vote for kerry. whats the point?

Seth Bullock, thats such a typical republican attitude, those are the reason to vote for kerry, so those less fortunate than you have a chance to live a decent life. I'd be more than happyto pay more tax if the money was used to help people less fortunate than myself... i have private healthcare so i dont need universal health care... but others dont so why should they suffer while you sit on your high horse thinking about how great you are that you can afford the luxuries of life

Remember that this group spans several presidencies and many were appointed by Democratic presidents.

Also, even they cannot hold their nose long enough to formally endorse Kerry:

The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change (search), does not explicitly endorse Democrat John Kerry for president in its campaign, which will start officially Wednesday at a Washington news conference.

The above is from this link:
here

from The Astral City

I wonder why, except to serve their own goals (be they religious, economic or vengence) that people support Bush.

Of course, to serve their own goals. Obvious and logical.

One more thing, America, the rest of the world is actually looking at you crosswise, it's not just the media.

Well, you can't please everyone.

Republican attitude? If you say so.

But think about this. Federal taxes, state taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, property taxes, Local taxes, Gas taxes, sales taxes, extra taxes on my home phone, my cell phone, my electric bill, my gas bill, my DirectTV bill etc. etc. etc. Last year I paid over $30,000.00 in all these taxes. Over 1/3 of my income. How much more do you want me to pay? Half? three quarters? Maybe I should just give it all to Kerry, then I could be "less fortunate" and maybe he would give some back.

There are other fixes to the health care problem in this country than making another bloated government agency. Tort reform. Limits on malpractice settlements. Legislation that punishes people for bringing frivolous lawsuits.

And by the way, I work 40 to 60 hours a week so I can "sit on my high horse thinking about how great I am that I can afford the luxuries of life".

My wife also works at least 40 hours. Lets call it 90 between the two of us. So that means that my wife and I spend about 30 hours a week working to give money to those less fortunate than us. It is enough. Sorry specialasianX, and you too Mr. Kerry, it's enough. No more.

Originally posted by specialasianX
Seth Bullock, thats such a typical republican attitude, those are the reason to vote for kerry,

Says you. It's typical because conservatives (not just republicans) would like to keep as much freedom as possible (at least in this area, let's not jump off into another right now).

so those less fortunate than you have a chance to live a decent life.

This is the problem with you warm and fuzzy folks, you think that no one who opposes federal social programs would give to charity. See charity is freely giving of your own money to help others, in case you didn't know. Forcibly taking it is called stealing.

Working for yourself is freedom, working for others wellbeing is called slavery. NO ONE is more deserving of the money I make than ME and my family.

I'd be more than happy to pay more tax if the money was used to help people less fortunate than myself... i have private healthcare so I don�t need universal health care... but others don�t so why should they suffer while you sit on your high horse thinking about how great you are that you can afford the luxuries of life

Again with the lap of luxury crap. I, like many others, bought a nice house and have nice things, but watching the poor from my place of opulence is a ridiculous notion. I work two jobs to give my family the things they deserve, to include medical benefits, nice house etc.

Who should have that money if not me? Those born stupid or lazy? No. Those who can not work or are trying but can't make it work? Perhaps, but I give of my own volition, not because someone else says I should. If I wanted to give my money to an ineffective organization, I'd give to the UN charity funds.

Former ambassadors and military people opposing Bush. Hmm, are you assuming that just because somebody is a general he must be a Republican? Bad assumption, as there are many who are Dems. How many of those "national security and military advisors" were part of Clinton's regime, I wonder? Remember Dick Clarke, the inept "terrorist expert" that was part of the problem that led to the attacks in September, 2001, who resigned after being given a more suitable job for his proficiency level, and now has a book for sell? Go figure, some don't like Bush for professional reasons, others for political reasons. All I'm saying is don't use their opinion as a standard.

Here is the dilemma as I see it. I have two ways to throw my vote, either for Bush, a man for whom I voted last time, and who has disappointed me on many issues, or a Kerry, a candidate who has the most liberal voting record than anybody else in congress. Kerry stands on the opposing side of about every issue that is important to me, from fiscal issues to moral issues.

The way it appears to me, another four years of Bush is not a good thing, but four years of Kerry could be a very bad thing.

I might just have to write in Alan Keyes' name so that I might vote my true belief.

One thing to consider about Kerry, he has been the most left-wing senator on record, but, he might go more toward the center were he to be elected. Remember Clinton? He got a lot of votes from the fringe left, but he never really did much toward the left. True, tax increases stifled the economy and his gutting of intelligence made us vulnerable to attack, but he really wasn't as bad as some still try and make him appear to have been.

Anyway, Keyes for president!!

Seth Bullock... if you work that many hours a week your seriously over working yourself. I hit the next highest tax bracket this year and i now pay 1/3 in tax as well... but it really doesnt bother me coz the other 2/3 is more than enough to live comfortably and enjoy the pleasures of life. I am a strong believer that the more you earn the more tax you should pay relative to your income. I'm not attacking you i'm attacking the attitude. I could earn a lot more than i do but i dont want to work 60 hour weeks (i work 42.5 hour weeks now not including 2 hours a day travel. put that in i got a 52.5 hour week) coz that would leave me no time to enjoy the money i earn. I wont ask you what you earn but i hope its enough to justify those kind of hours. Maybe if you worked less you would pay less tax and have more time to enjoy the money you work hard for, then maybe you wont feel so bad about sharing it iwith the less fortunate

SAX, if I may speak, you you prefer to work less and enjoy your time off, that is great, and I think that attitude is a good thing. However, if Seth's opinion is that he is not in the position to sit back and do that, then he should be able to work more and be rewarded for his work. He earned it, nobody else. It is not the government's job to steal money from the ones who earned it and then decide who should receive his hard-earned dollars. You know as well as I do, most of the money that goes into the "welfare" system is eaten up by the cost of running the innefficient system, and not everybody that gets a cut of what Seth earned deserves it.
On the other hand, do you give to charities? I know I do. Do you think you are better suited to decide where your money should go? Who knows your community, you or the government? If they taxed you less, wouldn't you then have more to donate to worthwhile charities? I know that I would.
The government is the most inept system you'll come across. Government workers aren't trying to make a profit, they aren't spending their money or their company's money, so efficiency isn't their top priority. Multi-tiered management levels, positions filled by people who have been promoted at least one level beyond their competency, all this make for fiscal disaster. Couple that with a Congress that, for years, have believed that your money is their money to spend aas they see fit, is more than enough reason to give the government less, and expect those bozos to spend it wisely. The answer is not a progressive tax system, that penalizes a producer or laborer for trying to do more.

Originally posted by specialasianX
Seth Bullock, thats such a typical republican attitude,

Yes, yes it is. Because Republicans are wholly concerned with what goes on every day in their own lives. The believe, generally, that they are the ones to take care of themselves. Are you familiar with the concept of 'rugged individualism'? That's what Bullock's an example of.
Why, then, is it my responsibility - or Bullock's, or any other "republican" - to take care of those around me who are, quite frankly, quite capable of caring for themselves.

those are the reason to vote for kerry, so those less fortunate than you have a chance to live a decent life. I'd be more than happyto pay more tax if the money was used to help people less fortunate than myself...

Then maybe you should be volunteering, donating a tithe, etc, etc.
To be perfectly frank, I feel obligated to protect and provide for me and my own. For no one else. If there is something charitable that I feel is personally relevant, then I will be involved.

Why should the government legally obligate me to take care of other people?
To me, that seems more like a dissolution of self-reliance and far too much of a packaged excuse for people who can simply live off of the system. If the government begins taxing me more, more of that money will go into such projects as welfare, etc.
But why should I be forced to monetarily support things that I am idealogically set against?
If I want to contribute monetarily or with my time and/or energies to something, I will do it, pending its personal relevency. That is, I'm not going to hemorhage money for a greenpeace or PETA cause, but I make sure to do Race for the Cure each year.

i have private healthcare so i dont need universal health care... but others dont so why should they suffer while you sit on your high horse thinking about how great you are that you can afford the luxuries of life

It has nothing to do with thinking of 'how great we are.'
It's like the old joke goes:
A democrat sees a homeless person and gives him five dollars.
A republican sees a homeless person and gives him a business card, telling him to come get a job.
I'm willing to help people who help themselves. I am not willing to pander to people who are too lazy, or who have not taken any initiative, to help themselves. While there certainly are genuine exceptions to this, the vast majority, as I perceive it, who take advantage of the US's welfare state, are neither deserving nor needing it.

Heh, I love starting and argument then stepping back and watching what happens.

I'll try to respond to some of the posts eventually, don't have time right now though....

Can someone tell me exactly why this story (see first post) isn't one of the top stories on the news stations? Why isn't this everywhere? Hell, it isn't even on the ATSNN top stories list. WHY?

This is big. A CIA director, tons of ambassadors, head of the airforce during the gulf war, and other military leaders from both parties. These aren't just "some guys".... So much for the liberal media eh?

Anyway....like TC, several people I know are writing in names on the ballot in November. If someone finds Kerry repugnant, they shouldn't vote for him. Vote for a third party. Just don't vote for Bush!

Ah, but there is the problem, you see?

If you find Kerry to be repugnant, vote third party, just don't vote for Bush. This way, you see, we will insure a decisive win for Kerry, who could quite possibly be the worst pick of all time (well, other than, possibly, Hillary).
You know that is the way everyone is going to think, on both sides of the issue. Dad Nabbit!!!! We need money so that we can get a third party up there with those two rip-off parties that have all the power. Thing is, even if a third party took the presidency, it'd still be very weak as congress would be comprised of the other two!
Yup. We're screwed.

i find this unsurprising...everyone has ignored what i've said and has instead decided to play politics as usual.

as i said before, i think we have more than one person to blame for all this.

or should we just continue to blame only one person and play ignorant to the bigger picture that painfully points out the obvious?

Oh, no, I agree with you, King of the Apes, Congress is a problem, they love to spend money, and that is a big, big problem. But, the President is a bigger issue, not only because of judicial appointments, but also because of the dratted Executive Order thing that has plagued us for decades, now!

If I could stray off topic for a moment, to commend everybody that posted on this thread for adherence to the "new rules". It really is nice to see some ideas challenged instead of people.