Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

As someone from Europe, observing the US objectively, I seriously wonder why anyone would vote for Bush. And I don't write this to offend. I just seriously wonder why!

What I have seen from the guy is this;

He took more vacations then any president in the office ever.

He turned a large budget surplus into a large deficit. He also gave tax-cuts to the rich.

He invaded Iraq despite the UN's objection, based on claims that there where weapons of mass destruction, which weren't there. Either he lied, or he believes lies, neither seem good qualities for a president.

He wants to constitutionally ban gay marriage, which is just pure evil, if you ask me. Not to mention a blatantly populistic move, trying to appeal to I guess, uhm.. backwards people. (Sorry, but I hold people who want to ban gay marriage in contempt. And I am not going to pretend I have a shred of respect for their opinion.)

He insulted just about every country allied with the US. I an definitly tell this here in Holland. Under Clinton people respected the US. Now the US is mocked, hated, looked down upon and what not.

Under his wing, employment has fallen 0.5% whilst the working age population grew 2.4%

Libertarians seem to like him, but as written on Zompist.com;

Bush's tax cuts are not matched by spending cuts, nor is he reducing the size of government; quite the opposite. Over two terms, Clinton raised non-defense discretionary spending by 10% total. In less than half that time, Bush has raised it by 25%. Bush's open-ended expansion of government powers should also be worrying to libertarians.

Evangelicals also seem to like him, but again, as written on Zompist.com (where it can be found in the rants section); The Republicans control all three branches of government; have they made any serious moves to ban abortion, reinstitute prayer in schools, or reverse gay rights? (which would be respectively misguided, a breach against the seperation of church and state and evil anyway.)

The Republicans apperently want to US to work like a Latin American nation. The fruits of the economy under Bush are more and more exclusively going to the rich, with the middle class barely staying where it is, and the poor getting worse off.


Now, and I really am not trying to troll here, I'm just seriously wondering. If anyone is pro-Bush, then why? And what counters do you have to these arguments?

I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just honestly curious. I noticed some here are pro-Bush, and I wonder what defense they have for the guy. I simply can't see any good points to him. Maybe I missed something?
[/i]

Hmm, this is gonna be interesting.

_________________

~40% of voters will vote for a Republican for President no matter who it is. just like ~40% of voters will vote for a Democrat for President no matter who it is.

I'm not sure I want to touch this one.

If you haven't a shred of respect for my opinions, why do you ask such a question? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as though you've only started this topic in an attempt to make a fool out of me and the many other conservatives who frequent this board.

If you sounded more willing to have an open-minded conversation, then I might consider it worth my time to explain my reasons for supporting Bush. As it stands, though, I'm afraid my reasoning would fall on deaf ears.

Because

1. Foreigners are grossly misinformed about US news

2. There are some people left who give a crap about the moral state of our nation

3. We are tired of hearing from bleeding-heart liberals who don't care about our opinions.

There are more reasons, though.

_________________
"Hey Dudes, thanks for rescuing me. Let's go for a burger... Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!"

Now, as you are reading this, don't be thinking that I am "pro-Bush". (Or at least get to the bottom before you think I am a complete idiot).



I would be interested in seeing if that was true. (I personally have no idea), can you point me to some reliable source?



Wasn't the budget surplus built up around the economics resulting from the dot-com era. How many of those companies were built up with no capital during the Clinton administration.

I tend to feel that the president has less to do with the economic status of the US then a lot of people like to give him credit (or blame) for.

Any time any country goes to war there is going to be spending (but that creates jobs)



Lying is bad, I will agree to that completely.

But I don't think blaming someone for listening to their advisors (who they should have every reason to trust) is a bad thing. If that was the case, then we would all be in that category (for listening to him)



He isn't alone on this issue (or he wouldn't still be in office, or running this november). Personally, I don't agree with it, but there are a number of people who do.



Again, I wouldn't mind seeing some sources of this.



Again, I wouldn't mind seeing some sources of this. I was under the impression that employment was going up.

Also, one of the things that bugs me about this is outsourcing. In the computer field (where I am headed), numerous jobs are being shipped out to other countries (like India) because the workers are willing to accept wages at a fraction of what US workers would. That isn't the president's fault, it's the companies who want to make money in a capatilistic society.

If you want to fix US employment problems, keep the US jobs in the US.



I don't know what to argue in this paragraph(s). You accuse him of "open-ended expansion of government powers", but if he was acting like a true republican (and attempting to eliminate as much governement as possible, you would criticize him for that.

Then you complain "The Republicans control all three branches of government; have they made any serious moves to ban abortion, reinstitute prayer in schools, or reverse gay rights? ". Had he (or congress, for that matter) made any attempt to pass legislation on those topics you would be up in arms about it.



People like to say that, but I don't know how true it is. If you could point me at some reliable sources...



It does seem to me that you are borderline trolling, but it could spark some debate.

I am not going to try and say I am pro-Bush (because I don't think I am). I am just against people continuing to spread false or misleading information.

It could be that it is all true, I just would like to see some sources.

Come November, I don't know who I am going to vote for. It's a mess, that's for sure.

_________________

Saddam didn't just have George Bush convinced he had WMD. Saddam had also convinced Clinton's administration, John Kerry, and all of the Iraqi people that he had them as well, just to name a few.

Oh, and as a side note,



if you don't like like the guy, isn't every day he's on vacation and not making decisions a good day?

I'm bisexual, and I do not believe in christianity. And I also am toroughly devoted to a girl who is a lesbian. I also believe in logic, and ethics. And I feel that a logical ethical position dictates that all people should have equal rights. Just as all people are equal before law. As I believe all people are equal as human beings. And in fact, I do believe everyone is entitled to their opinions, but in order to do so, I also feel that respect has to be earned, and is not given freely. I believe its just that people should be treated alike without regards for race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. And I cannot respect contrary beliefs, as I simply consider it wrong to brand whichever segment of the population as inferior based on things they cannot help. No matter how small that segment might be.

Thus I feel its bad enough that gays and lesbians do not have equal rights in the US as it is. They do in Holland, and can get every benefit a married couple can, should they want to. And I feel that is how it should be. They are in no way inferior to straights, nor is their sexuality in anyway wrong. And in fact its not 'against nature' either as it has been observed in many species. And for those who don't believe that I have a picture of two male lions mating, that says otherwise.

So I feel that anyone who'd wants to constitutionally deny them such rights, or worse make them criminals for simply being who they are, I feel not only insults me personally as a bisexual, and insults the person who I care about incredibly much for being a lesbian. But I also feel that such a person is no better then any racist who wants to say, deny blacks the right to vote. After all, they are doing exactly the same thing. They are telling people they can't have something because they are who they are!

Tell me, how are they any better? They want to deny people rights they should have in a just society, because these people are something they can do nothing about! And for what? In what way are you hurt if gays get the right to marry? How does this influence you at all?

I feel strongly about this, yes. But if you can explain to me why I should feel differently, please do! If someone beliefs that say... all native americans should be exterminated, should I respect that as their belief as well? Or rather... how about the exact same situation. Should I respect people's beliefs if they feel that only Christians should be allowed to marry? After all, Hindu marriages can't possibly be valid to the Christian God, now can they?

If you have a valid logical argument why I am wrong, then please, by all means give it a shot.


Also, All Bush supporters I heard so far asked me to provide reliable sources for my quotes. And I suppose I could go hunt down my sources and link them, although I suppose I'll just hear from them that they are misinformed. I'll still hunt them down if you want to though.

But still... rather then that I'd rather ask them a counter-question.

Provide me with a list of GOOD things Bush has done. if anyone did, I have missed it. Sorry.

All I saw where people either asking me where I got my arguments. (Internet and Dutch newspapers mainly.) Or trying to tell me they are wrong. I have yet to see a good defense of Bush, or even a reason why it'd be better if he won, rather then Kerry.

I gots your source right here, from your closest neighbour, Canada. The truth is America has ALWAYS been hated (or perhaps envied?) by the rest of the world...(I do NOT hate America - I live here, I am half-American, my mother and brother are Americans, but I am stating the truth, my friends). It has nothing to do with the President who happens to be in office at the particular time. I've had COUNTLESS debates with (non-American) friends who believe that the US people are gun-toting, war-hungry, and power mad. I know that isn't true...but my point is, it doesn't matter if it's Clinton, Bush, Kerry or Interruptor Jones in office - the US has always been looked down upon....(if you want my personal opinion, I think those who dislike the US are jealous....but that's just my opinion...)

Pardalis - you are right that people should not be judged on the basis of sexuality....I am Christian, but I hate it when people tell me that homosexuality is "wrong"....God made homosexuals and He loves them, so I love them too...that's all that matters to me. You seem to have covered many issues though in this thread - homosexuality, Bush vs. Kerry, Christianity....oh well.

_________________

Well, Pardalis, would you vote for Kerry?

I have to agree with Pardalis on this one. I just cant stand Bush. At times I was prepared to fear for my life. But lots of Canadians hate Bush like me so...

_________________

I recognize a desperate troll when I see one, but okay, I'll take the bait.



Your average European is far more informed about world politics than your average American is about our own affairs. Go take a poll and ask people around the U.S. if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Then take the same poll in the EU. Take a guess at the results.



Oh, morality. You mean like the kind of morality that made Donald Rumsfeld allow children to be sodomized at Abu Ghraib? Or do you mean the kind of morality that actively works to prevent black citizens from voting? Or maybe you're referring to the kind of morality which intentionally ensures that 51,000 legitimate voters don't get counted. Well, it's such a relief that a vote for Bush is a vote for a moral administration.



What, because President Bush cares about everybody's opinions? Of course he does! He cares about the opinions of the 66% of Americans who want to see the Assault Weapons Ban renewed, right? Even though he refuses to renew it? And he cares about the opinions of the two people he had detained by police for wearing t-shirts that express those opinions to his rally, right? And he cares about the opinions of the people who aren't allowed into his rallies because they won't sign a Loyalty Oath, right? Boy, I'm sure glad we have a president who cares about everybody's opinions.

_________________

As a Libertarian, I can tell you the reason why many Libertarians like President Bush. Well, he is the right man at the right time, he will defend America at any cost. Libertarians care alot about the defence of the United States its the 1# issue. Perhaps some have forgot but the U.S. is at WAR!

Perhaps you forgot this too the UN is not the governing body of the United States. I am not huge fan of President Bush but the war is most important. Tell me something else where do you get this idea of tax cuts for the rich they where tax cuts for everyone, taxes should be equal. So what if he insulted the other countries but the defence of the U.S. is the top priority!

Are you talking about the War in Iraq, which we started and which is essentially over (since we're currently occupying the country and control their government), or are you talking about the "War on Terror", which Bush has almost entirely abandoned (except when his poll numbers are low)?

_________________

We are at war with terrorist , 9-11 was a declaration of war against the United States. Have you already forgotten?

Pardalis, I just read on another post you said you were a socialist. I belive this explains why you dont like Bush because he is a Capitalist.

Nope, but Bush sure would like us to. When was the last time you heard him mention the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden? The question is not rhetorical.



Oh, yeah, I'm sure this sums it up real neatly. How 'bout it, Pardalis?

_________________

I don't understand, either! How did George Bush win? I voted for Al Gore, myself. I mean, everyone makes fun of Bush! I don't know who in the right mind would vote for him! It's just...weird...

_________________

We know how Bush won. He cheated. Take some time to review.

_________________

I didn't really read this thread much. I just put down my beliefs.

_________________

That's fine, the link is for the benefit of everybody.

_________________

Okay Stu, I'm not going to answer all of your questions, in the hope that others will do a little research on their own and get a little discussion going. I'll just take the first one:



“A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.

Though that's only the first eight months he was in office.


“Bush Retreats to a Favorite Getaway: Crawford ranch,” Houston Chronicle, April 11, 2004.

That's three years. A little more recent.

Of course, these articles do not say that this is "more vacations then any president in the office ever". I don't think they know how much time Chester A. Arthur and Martin Van Buren spent on vacation.

If you were a christian, you'd know homosexuality is wrong. God did not creat homosexuals. They created themselves. Its a mindset built upon pesonal feelings. To put it bluntly, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Thats not saying you're an evil, or bad person. I'm not trying to put you down. Thats beside the point.

To the point!


This is a big subject nowadays. Most people think thats the only reason we went into Iraq. But check your info. It wasn't. You may have known the Iraqi's were under a dictatorship ruled by Saddam Hussein. He killed millions of his own people with VX mustard gas. He set up rape rooms where hundreds were subjected to cruel actions. He had torture chambers.. where people were, well, tortured! Tell me a reason why not to LIBERATE this country! WMD's, sure. But the more important reason for us going into Iraq was to LIBERATE!



Where are you getting this information? The supermarket tabloids in Holland? Tell me when he insulted all of our allies.

As far as Clinton goes... no. Clinton was a flake. Clinton promised time and time again that he would hunt down and kill the terrorists. All he really did was hunt down Bill Gates. Now when Bush comes along and actually works to hunt down and kill the terrorists... people are angered! This makes no sense!



Actually, if you check your facts, employment has increased.

Thats my two cents. I'm not much a guy with words, but there you go.

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that kind of a contradiction? Saying that homosexuality is "wrong" and pointing out that you're not trying to put anyone down? Oh, and I'm swayed towards evolution in the debate, but if we were to discuss this rhetorically...
It is Adam and Eve. A man and a woman. Now, that is not wrong at all. You need two people of opposite gender to reproduce, based on simple meiosis of cells. I can understand why you would point this out. If it was two men, or two women, then no-one would procreate, and the human race would die out. That would be why.

But if we were to look into that, and say that you think homosexuality is wrong because they can't produce children of their own. I'm not saying that's your only reason, I'm saying that that's the only reason you appear to have shown against it. I'd like to point out that these are modern times, and thanks to such measures as in-vitro fertilisation, a child can be conceived, albiet by unnatural means, to homosexual couples. So, basically, if you are worried about homosexuality being wrong because it might cause a population decrease, then I'd just like you to think of these modern times, and how things can be done about it.

Basically, I have got nothing against homosexuals, as a whole lot of people I've met online are bisexual, and are still wonderful people, with real feelings. I've seen posts on a past forum by a girl expressing her grief over having split up with a long-time girlfriend. Those feelings are the same feelings that I would have if I had split up with a long-time girlfriend of my own. These feelings need to be cared about, as I would want a ceremony and title to express my feelings and love to the woman of my dreams, and if I want that, I cannot imagine anyone else being denied that, based on their choice of whoever they want to share the ceremony/title with.

I'm not saying that your view is "wrong", I'm saying that I disagree with it. I do not wish for this thread to be full of flames from one side to another, I just wish to express my point in a friendly arguement. It's good to talk, sometimes.

_________________
Move sig, move sig, move sig, move sig. For great justice take off every sig. Move sig, move sig, move sig. You know what you doing take off every sig.

I hardly think that a population decrease is a bad thing. The world is reaching an overpopulation crisis as it is, so if anything it's a blessing.

So? I'm not a Christian. This isn't a Christian nation. We don't make laws based on Christianity. If "because my Christian god says it's wrong" seems like a good reason to make a federal or state law banning gay marriage, then you need to find a different country where the church makes the laws. This is not that country.

This is, of course, the entire crux of the gay marriage debate. Whether or not our President and legislators should be allowed to make laws based solely upon the beliefs of particular religions. Should my life be governed by your belief system? Should your life be governed by mine? Again, the question is not rhetorical, and I'd appreciate an answer.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business. The "institution of marriage" is so mired in religious sentiment that it's impossible to make laws concerning marriage without favoring a particular belief system.



Oh, really? Actually, if you'd check your facts, you'd see that almost 3 million jobs have been lost in the private sector since Bush took office. And those few who have gained jobs in the meantime (the current job growth is the worst it's been since the Great Depression) are being paid on average $9,000 less per year than their previous job. And you'd see that long-term unemployment has increased 117% since Bush took office (its highest in 20 years). And that the number of bankruptcies have increased by 10% since he took office. And you'd see that this is the third straight year that poverty has increased in the U.S., and that Bush hasn't put another 1.3 million people under the poverty line this year (2.4 million since he took office). And if you checked your facts, you'd see that while the costs of health care, college tuition, and gasoline have skyrocketed due to his policies, the average American household is making $1,500 less than when he took office.

_________________

Okay, I believe that health care costs have gone up. I believe college tuition has gone up. Gasoline prices may have gone up (gasoline costs less as a percentage of the average families income now than it ever did in the 70's and 80's). I also believe that Dubya has policies. What I'd love to see, though, is where you establish a causal link for any of those things. It seems there are much bigger reasons for those price increases than George W. Bush's policies.

What, you think it's just a coincidence that all of these things happened since Bush took office, when most trends were going in the opposite (positive) direction beforehand? Right.

I suppose you'll tell me that in the previous fourteen terms those other presidents "just got lucky", right?

You might want to check out these carts, from the U.S. Department of Labor, too. They're hosted on the U.S. Senate web site. I'll give you the highlights. Bush's administration:

• Is the only one one 70 years with private sector job destruction
• Is one of only two since Hoover with stock market decline
• Has the greatest average annual decline in household income
• Has the second largest average annual rise in poverty rate

But I'm sure it's just a coincidence...

_________________

Gas prices :

[Figure 1]

College prices :

[Figure 2]

Health care costs :

[Figure 3]

I suppose you might blame him because costs haven't come down, but it doesn't seem that gas was getting cheaper, health care was getting cheaper, and college was getting cheaper before he took office. And like I said, there are bigger reasons that these things have gotten more expensive than who is sitting in the White House.

Gasoline prices are influenced by so many factors. Double digit population rowth in China and India are two of the biggest reasons. Their demand for fuel is skyrocketing along with their populations, which creates competition for fuel little fuel that is being produced. Throw in strikes in Venezuela, political problems between Russia and its biggest oil producer, Yukos, and political problems in Nigeria, and gasoline production is very cramped as is. The war in Iraq hasn't helped either, but our gas prices would be going up with or without the problems there.

College tuitions are going up for different reasons. The biggest problem was the recent downturn in the economy and the burst of the tech bubble. State governments lost boatloads of tax revenue that they had come to depend on throughout the 90's. Without that tax revenue, they had to cut back in a huge way on what they could spend on education. Thus the costs get passed on to us. As much as a president would like to claim responsibility for a growing economy, it's a realistic as Al Gore inventing the internet. The economy is completely out of control of the president. All a president can do is raise or lower taxes on the companies/people, which only has a small effect. The biggest driver (dwarfing all other reasons) for whether the economy does well or poorly is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is independant from political pressure, and recent data has pointed to them as the cause of the recession which killed the technology boom. If you are interested I can recommend a good book about the Federal Reserve.

Health care prices have just as many reasons to rise. A big part is the aging population. As the country as a whole is getting older, there are more and more health problems afflicting the country per capita. Also, due to advances in pharmaceuticals and medical technology, we are treating more and more diseases than ever before. We can keep more people alive longer now than at any other time. So many routine and common cases today were fatal just 20 years ago. It costs a lot more to keep people alive now than it did to let them die. Since nobody's calling for that, it's just going to cost more and more. The out of control malpractice situation is also a big problem.

It sure sounds easy to blame George W. Bush for all of this, but that's taking a very simplistic view.

First of all, link to the charts; don't post them in the thread. It makes it a pain for the modem users to browse the forum.

Secondly, you're focusing on a handful of words that I mentioned in my previous post (which I really only mentioned to serve as a benchmark for income trends, but I digress) and completely ignoring the rest because it's convenient. I won't say that you're not without a point in your previous post, but it is beside the point; unless you're telling me that the continuing trend in college tuition is somehow an indicators of what a great job Bush is doing.

So, by way of getting back on topic, what are everybody's thoughts on the administration's failures in employment and poverty, as illustrated by the Department of Labor and the Census Bureau? Oh, and how about the fact that Bush tried to sweep that poverty report under the rug?

_________________