-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who voted for Bush
- Thread starter shema
- Start date
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
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.
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.
ayani
member
CaptainXeroid
Following Christ
OK...I'll admit it. I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
While I detest that the Republicans seem to have abandoned their foundation of limited government and fiscal responsiblity, I just have not seen signs that the Democrats would do any better.
Frubals to doppleganger for many good points. Like you and Booko and probably a few others, I'm not real impressed with either party at the moment. 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'll probably vote Republican in 2008 as well.:cover:
While I detest that the Republicans seem to have abandoned their foundation of limited government and fiscal responsiblity, I just have not seen signs that the Democrats would do any better.Frubals to doppleganger for many good points.
Like you and Booko and probably a few others, I'm not real impressed with either party at the moment. 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'll probably vote Republican in 2008 as well.:cover:
CaptainXeroid
Following Christ
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:
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
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:
shaktinah said:
Asking yourself whether you would want to invite someone to dinner can be a way of conceptualizing whether you feel a person has values that are compatible with your own. It is simply one way of looking at a person. I suspect that people who vote on that basis are not nearly so superficial as they might seem to others to be.
Each of us has different ways of viewing the world. We are not all qualified to judge the intellectual merits of a candidate. And some of us are more qualified to judge the character or personality of a candidate than are others because our intelligence is more people oriented than that of others.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
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:
Just a note to DG, luna, and CX: I am an unabashed liberal. I like things like social security, unemployment & welfare (and no, I've never used either one), and am in favor of universal health care. In that sense, I am in favor of govt "interfering" in our lives. That said, the Democratic party as it is now does not inspire me in the least. The classic argument between liberals and conservatives is a respectable one. (I respect the conservative view, as you guys have outlined it, even tho I disagree.) But now the supposed liberals are trying to be weaker versions of conservatives and the supposed conservatives have gone insane.