Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
standing_alone said:Sorry. Just hate it when people vote for politicians based on superficial nonesense instead of issues and qualification.
lunamoth said:I agree. That's why I voted for Jeb Bartlet.
he's kinda cute. looks a little like christopher walken.
gracie said:he's kinda cute. looks a little like christopher walken.
doppelgänger said:You can watch Bush 2004 debate Bush 2000 on a number of issues (including nation building and regime changing) here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHB_NRIojho
It's briliant.
I agree with these sentiments and have heard them expressed so often I'm kind of surprised we do not have a viable third party running on such a platform.doppelgänger said:I voted for him in 2000 and against him in 2004. Gore made many of the same mistakes Kerry made, letting his "handlers" spin everything, rather than coming across as genuine.
I'm actually a "conservative" guy when it comes to government. And when I use that term I mean that I think government should limit its intrusion into people's lives to those things necessary to protect the rights of the people and those things the free market is ill-equipped to handle such as national security, environmental protection, workers' and childrens' rights, public education, and aid to the poor. Government should stay out of "family values" and "morality." It should stay far, far, far away from religion as best it can. It should stay out of making policy to favor corporate profitability over corporate competetiveness and productivity (no "no bid" contracts, no tax breaks on capital gains, no use of public money for private gains, etc.). Government should run with some level of fiscal accountability - that's our credit they are borrowing all that money to spend (and our children and grandchildren will be paying that debt for years to come). And foreign policy should be cautious and favor stability over ideology.
Bush, it turns out, takes the opposite tack to every single one of these issues despite his appearance as a rather benign conservative in 2000. That the supposedly "conservative" Repbulican party went along with all of this is so disturbing I'm not sure there's any salvaging them for me. Truth be told, I don't like Democrats either (I don't like any politicians), but if that's the only check we're going to have on an administration run amok, then it's what we need. And right now, Democrats represent these conservative, small govenment values much, much better than Republicans.
You can watch Bush 2004 debate Bush 2000 on a number of issues (including nation building and regime changing) here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHB_NRIojho
It's briliant.
lunamoth said:I agree with these sentiments and have heard them expressed so often I'm kind of surprised we do not have a viable third party running on such a platform.
haaaa! You know what's funny about that to me, Gracie? Even though people know that page is a joke, some of them still voted for Bush. Wow. I of course, picked Tic Tacsgracie said:
Buttercup said:haaaa! You know what's funny about that to me, Gracie? Even though people know that page is a joke, some of them still voted for Bush. Wow. I of course, picked Tic Tacs
Buttercup said:I of course, picked Tic Tacs.
CaptainXeroid said:OK...I'll admit it. I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
From the second part of my post. "As I weigh the options, I guess the deciding factor for me in 2000 and 2004 was judicial appointments. I think we are better off with conservative judges" I think everyone knew that Rehnquist was not going to last until 2008 and that there was a chance whoever was elected in 2004 would get at least one more Supreme Court appointment.gracie said:ok.... 2000 i can understand. but why a second time?
Yeah, I don't understand that one at all. People seem to want their president to be "one of the boys," and they seem to automatically associate intellect with snobbery. I want a president who is smarter than the average bear. I want the best qualified person for the job. You wouldn't hire a mechanic who is unqualified to fix your car just because you'd like to have a round of beers with him. You wouldn't choose your doctor that way either. Why in the world do we choose our presidents - the person who has the greatest impact on our future as a country - that way?spacemonkey said:We need the person who is most QUALIFIED TO LEAD A COUNTRY, not the person you'ld invite over for dinner. If you don't agree with anything he's done and you voted for him ANYWAYS....its probably best I say no more....:areyoucra
shaktinah said:Yeah, I don't understand that one at all. People seem to want their president to be "one of the boys," and they seem to automatically associate intellect with snobbery. I want a president who is smarter than the average bear. I want the best qualified person for the job. You wouldn't hire a mechanic who is unqualified to fix your car just because you'd like to have a round of beers with him. You wouldn't choose your doctor that way either. Why in the world do we choose our presidents - the person who has the greatest impact on our future as a country - that way?
Not me! :162: Tho I'll admit that for a very brief moment right after 9/11 I was thankful that Bush was in office instead of Gore. The speech he gave at ground zero was good and I thought that Gore would not have been able to touch the American people in that way. Maybe true but Gore would never have taken us into Iraq on bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction, irradicating our national wealth and stature but not the terrorists, Gore woulda never cut funding to FEMA (after Clinton had strengthened the department) and put a crony buddy in charge just in time for Katrina, and he would definately have signed the Kyoto agreement.shema said:Did anybody vote President Bush in office for the first/second term? and why/Why not?