I would appreciate it if you tell me why you are still supporting Bush. I have always been a Republican, but I just can't do it. Let's grade him... 1) Foreign Relations: F Does anything need to be said? 2) Economy: C- He inherited a recession, but his big stimulus (the tax cut) hasn't done a hole bunch yet. Some of the best (track-record) investment letters listed a fund that sells stocks short as a top pick. That does not bode well. I am convinced that his horrid foreign policy (if allowed to continue) will adversely effect US companies. 3) Business: C- This one is complicated. This Admin ALWAYS tries to help businesses, even at the expense of consumers (they refused to allow a health dept release that mentioned the longterm adverse health effects of corn syrup ). But the foreign relations debacles and giant deficits could haunt this sector. 4) Environment: F If someone can mention any instance that this administration defended the environment, I'd be happy to reconsider. 5) Separation of Church and State F What was the quote, 'God speaks through me' ? (FWIW, this shouldn't even have to be an issue) 6) Protect the Constitution D I don't give him a 'D' because of the Patriot Act; I give it because of Ashcroft. Also, the admin's 'enemy combatant' designation may have been too far-reaching. 7) Commander in Chief B+ I'll give him a break and only grade him on the short-term. With that, I mean will he take gutsy action when necessary: yes. The major problem I see is with the neocon philosophy of bullying everyone; I see major a longterm negative impact on our Country from this ideology. 8) Spending and Deficit F 9) Taxes A OVERALL: F Why do these add up to an F? Because everything that effects my childrens' future is a GIANT negative: foreign relations, deficit, environment, Constitution.
FYI: I am querying Conservatives because many seem to still support Bush. I am honestly curious ... why?
I also consider myself a conservative republican but I am also having major issues. 1) The deficit -- what happen ? 2) Pre-emptive war -- unless the world is behind you (or at least most of it) or you are directly attacked (Saddam Hussein as horrible as he is did not order planes into the world trade center) war should not be an option
Cohen -- you're like a mirror image of me right now. of course, i'm just leaning liberal to make friends.
Cohen- the main reason to vote for Bush is that he can dance many variation of dances. Kerry can only do the waffle shuffle...
to answer your question, conservatives are a diverse bunch, some put more weight on different issues, some follow their group alliance blindly because they can't or fear thinking for themselves. Anyway, groups disrupt individual thinking, i don't think its possible for so many people to agree exactly the same way on so many diverse issues. However, if you don't like individual thinking, then groups are for you.
I have more houses under Bush than previous admin.... I also have more children... more money... more cars... more guns... and more bullets... I also will get more bullets and guns than the previous admin.... I give him an A+ overall, because I have secured a better future for my children with him as President...That is why you can count on me to be a voter of 4 more years of HELLLLLLLLLL!!!!
IMO, you can add the imminent lapse of the assault weapons ban to the list. I am a gun owner and occasional hunter, but I don't want my next door neighbor having military grade assault weapons, and I don't think the police need to be facing them either. Too bad the Democrats couldn't come up with anyone better than Kerry. Who to vote for?
Why?...I could be your neighbor, but my fancy of "military grade assault weapons" is overwhelmingly for the love of target shooting, and much, much less so...defense. I will have a 16 inch barreled (highly regarded) Bushmaster M4A3 with a B.M.A.S. stock, and pre-ban features - (I will order after Sept. 13th) (flash suppresor, bayonet lug, with tritium night sights installed...I will also put a side light by surefire on it...The .223 round it fires is considered excellant for CQB, or home defense because it tends to NOT penetrate walls the way a 9mm or .45 pistol round can,...BUT is tremendous in stopping power...and yes it will have 30 round production magazines! I own several fine firearms, as a constitutional right including a legal AK47...Am I threat to you or the police? No...Ask liberals, I met such as andymoon, Rocketman 95, etc....Do I look like a threat? Did I bring the guns to the game? Heck no...But I am a firearm enthusiast, and I believe in the no-nonsense 2nd admendment, I will protect myself, and to be honest with you, both candidates are trying to tread lightly on the AWB issue in regards to commiting...The last thing you want is to have 30 to 40 million gun owning citizens declaring: NOT AGAIN! NOT MY RIGHTS! NOT EVER AGAIN!!!, and channeling this with their votes! (next on my list: (after the Bushmaster M4A3) Springfield Armory M1A SOCOM 16)
You certainly didn't seem dangerous to me. As far as I am concerned, anyone who is not a convicted felon, mental patient, and is of age should be able to own just about any firearm they want. If they use it for other than self defense, they should go to jail, but criminals can already get just about any gun they want so homeowners should be able to legally get the guns that they want.
From JohnKerry.com Sportsmen will have a say in this campaign Times-Picayune by Bob Marshall New Orleans, LA - It was Wednesday morning, and Sen. John Kerry was calling. He had an important point he wanted to make to hunters and anglers: "I think I do a better job of fighting for the rights of sportsmen than George Bush does," Kerry said. Over the next 20 minutes the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee gave detailed explanations for that claim based on now-familiar themes: He is a life-long hunter and angler, he has never voted to take away hunters' gun rights and -- most important -- he is much stronger on environmental protection, without which sportsmen would have little fish and game to pursue. By the time Kerry had to get back on his campaign plane, I knew the interview revealed good news for sportsmen. Not because of the knowledge and passion Kerry displayed when discussing the issues; the man didn't win three terms to the U.S. Senate without being a convincing campaigner. Instead, it was the fact that he bothered to call at all. Sportsmen and their issues may be back in play during a presidential election for the first time in decades. And that can only be good news for the future of fish and wildlife, and all other things that depend on a clean environment. It was no accident that Kerry chose to wrap this Louisiana visit around sportsmen's environmental issues -- including a tour of Shell Beach's eroded marshes and a lunch with local anglers. The Democrat's photo-op came just two weeks after Bush had a raft of sportsmen's groups out to his Texas spread for a similar publicity event. The sudden prominence of the hook-and-bullet crowd in this election is a direct result of what has been a serious revolt over the last year within the ranks of a community Republicans have taken for granted for more than 30 years. The sporting culture had long been suspicious of mainstream environmental groups -- "tree-huggers and granola crunchers" -- because they were championed by liberal politicians. To most sportsmen, "liberal" meant anti-gun, and anti-gun meant anti-hunter. So any administration could always count on the catch-and-kill folks to be in their column -- or at least silent -- when they squared off with environmental groups. The Bush Administration may have changed that. In its zeal to roll back environmental policies that have protected fish and wildlife habitat for a generation, this administration clearly misjudged today's educated sportsmen. Hunters and anglers have been outraged as oil and gas wells have spread across previously protected forests and prairies, as waterfowl wetlands have had Clean Water Act protections stripped, as blue-ribbon trout streams have been placed in the path of logging operations. So when the presidential season got underway, the unthinkable happened. Not only have sportsmen been openly bolting the president, there are now "Sportsmen for Kerry" groups. It's hard to overstate the importance of this change to the future of public hunting and fishing -- and the general health of our environment. For 50 years the two greatest forces in American conservation have been sportsmen and environmental groups. Hunters and anglers put up most of the money that paid for government programs rebuilding fish and wildlife populations, while the green groups worked in Washington to provide essential federal protections for the needed habitat. But despite their obvious common interests, the two groups seldom worked together, instead buying into stereotypes that insisted they were mutual enemies, not brothers in arms. That friction was important to the moneyed interests who oppose tough environmental regulations and even the idea of public lands as part of a public trust. Their worst nightmare always has been the possibility of environmental-sportsmen. If the guys in the hunter-orange hats suddenly began thinking green, politicians they could always count on might have to start listening to the other side. Now that could be happening. The first sign came late last year when the president agreed to sit down with sportsmen's groups to discuss his administration's assault on the Clean Water Act. By the end of the session he agreed to restore some protections to waterfowl wetlands. The reviews were good enough on that episode for Bush to follow up with the recent meeting at his ranch. And now we have his challenger reaching out to sportsmen -- and sportsmen responding. The ideal outcome of this would be for sportsmen to recognize that mainstream environmental groups have been waging their battles for many years -- but they can no longer do it alone. If hunters and fishers take that step -- if the "catch-and-killers" admit they have as much at stake in the battles over clean air and clean water as the "granola-crunchers" -- then fish and wildlife issues will cease being a partisan issue. And that would be good news for hunters and anglers -- and all other living things on this planet. link
On foreign relations you gave an ‘F’. You even said (I quote) “Need I say more?” But it is my opinion that you left Out the fact, this was a needed war. The evil that spawns in the Mid-East Sands Be it Iraq, Iran, or wherever Wants to destroy our beloved land And they will not quit. Not now. Not ever You may wish to call it jumping the gun I would prefer to call it preemption But their hate will not end until they have won Trust our fates to The United Nations? To say he’s a failure is just plain wrong He did what I would have done all along.
I know it has probably been posted elsewhere, but it is worth re-posting for those who are having second thoughts on W. Reagan: The Case Against Bush
But what else will white men with extremely small penises have to compensate with when they can't afford expensive sports cars?
What's that have to do with some courts slapping around the Bush admin's definition of enemy combatant?
