Please list reasons why Bush should be re-elected. I'm very interested in hearing your sincere arguments.
This election seems to provoke vitriol and name-calling. Please refrain from this type of behavior in this thread. Please be respectful to the people who post.
Also, please do not hijack this thread. If you want to list reasons to vote for Kerry, please post on the partner thread: "Why vote for Kerry?
Originally posted by zucchini1. Because he's opposed to stem-cell research/cloning (he is, isn't he?)
Please list reasons why Bush should be re-elected. I'm very interested in hearing your sincere arguments.
This election seems to provoke vitriol and name-calling. Please refrain from this type of behavior in this thread. Please be respectful to the people who post.
Also, please do not hijack this thread. If you want to list reasons to vote for Kerry, please post on the partner thread: "Why vote for Kerry?
2. Because he upholds the value of marriage and family.
Originally posted by lucifershammerNot quite. He supports adult stem cell research, and he supports funding embryonic stem cell research that uses stem cell lines already in existence. He is against federal funding for the cultivation of new embryonic stem cell lines, but he is OK with private funding of such research.
1. Because he's opposed to stem-cell research/cloning (he is, isn't he?)
2. Because he upholds the value of marriage and family.
About upholding the value of marriage and family, I'm not really sure what that means. Doesn't everybody, including Kerry, like marriage and family? Heck, Kerry likes marriage so much he's done it twice. 😉
Originally posted by bbarrHow about "because he's a certain commander-in-chief who does not send out mixed signals to the troops"?
Not quite. He supports adult stem cell research, and he supports funding embryonic stem cell research that uses stem cell lines already in existence. He is against federal funding for the cultivation of new embryonic stem cell lines, but he is OK with private funding of such research.
About upholding the value of marriage and family, I'm not really sure ...[text shortened]... ing Kerry, like marriage and family? Heck, Kerry likes marriage so much he's done it twice. 😉
Originally posted by lucifershammerHmmm. Well, when the Bush administration decided to cut health care benefits for over 100.000 middle-income veterans, and proposed doubling the co-pay costs for prescription drugs for veterans, and closed down a bunch of VA hospitals, don't you think they thereby sent mixed signals to the troops?
How about "because he's a certain commander-in-chief who does not send out mixed signals to the troops"?
"Hey, troops, please put your life on the line for us, but your health isn't a budget priority."
😕
Originally posted by bbarrGood point...
Hmmm. Well, when the Bush administration decided to cut health care benefits for over 100.000 middle-income veterans, and proposed doubling the co-pay costs for prescription drugs for veterans, and closed down a bunch of VA hospitals, don't you think they thereby sent mixed signals to the troops?
"Hey, troops, please put your life on the line for us, but your health isn't a budget priority."
😕
In the absense of posts with significant lists of reasons, I propose this list. I have made a serious attempt at explaining the reasons to re-elect Bush, and keep this factual. If you find fault on a factual basis, by all means correct me. Come on you Republicans, put up your reasons! (I am not affiliated with a party.)
He is a strong, resolute leader. This is a large part of his appeal. This is a view shared by many and is at the core of why he will likely be re-elected. [Don't forget, he is the first modern president to face a foreign attack on the U.S. continent. How would you have handled it?]
After 9/11 his administration took the war to the terrorist camps and the Taliban in Afghanistan. [I believe any administration in the same situation would have taken similar action.] This brought terrorist supporters from around the region to fight in an overseas war. The Tailban was overthrown. There is a real hope of improvement in Afghanistan versus before the war, when the country was Islamist and its economy was built on criminal activity (to a greater degree than now).
His administration is responsible for the current war in Iraq. They did such a quick job of the initial phase of the war (the push into Baghdad), that the world watched in awe at the power and skill of the U.S. military. Saddam was removed from power in about six weeks, with major casualties to Iraq's fighting forces. Saddam himself was captured, later over half of the people on the most wanted list were captured. This war, too, has brought terrorist supporters from around the region to fight in it (overseas). If this war works, and democracy can be installed in Iraq, it will help bring stability to a very unstable region. The Palestinian / Israeli conflict is central to the goal of stability in the region, and Iraq was a serious threat to Israel. The deposure of Saddam has already saved lives. Saddam's regime was killing people at a much greater rate than the war has. The U.S. is working hard to try to stabilize Iraq, and to bring freedom to its people. This is especially important for Iraqi women.
His administration has worked hard to face security issues. The list here is long. There has not been another attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, while several plans and attempts have been thwarted.
He is a strong supporter of capitalism and free-markets. This is a very big issue. During Bush's tenure, the U.S. is pulling out of a recession based in the excesses of the late 90s and deepened by 9/11. Trade is expanding. This is good for the U.S and for the rest of the world.
He is a strong supporter of the military. The need for a strong military is finally obvious after a lapse of concern after the cold war ended.
His administration has proposed a large amount of financial aid to fight AIDs in Africa, that aid is a large portion of the total offered by the entire world.
He supports stem cell research to a greater degree than previous presidents (although he wants to prevent new lines started from fetal tissue).
And a few issues that everyone largely agrees on:
He has a strong commitment to education and social security. He understands many of the problems with the current health care system, and is working to find innovative ways to improve it. National health care, while appealing to many, is very difficult to create, administer and keep cost effective. He is interested in environmental protections phased in to allow businesses time to adapt.
Although this is not a reason, but to balance the partner thread:
He's not John Kerry. In my opinion, this is not a very good reason to vote for someone. You must find reasons to vote for someone, or you just might get someone worse.
Originally posted by bbarrI learnt this quite recently and found it really bizarre. Surely if something is unethical it is unethical whoever is funding it. All you are doing is giving an unfair advantage to the private sector over the public, aren't you?
Not quite. He supports adult stem cell research, and he supports funding embryonic stem cell research that uses stem cell lines already in existence. He is against federal funding for the cultivation of new embryonic stem cell lines, but he is OK with private funding of such research.
About upholding the value of marriage and family, I'm not really sure ...[text shortened]... ing Kerry, like marriage and family? Heck, Kerry likes marriage so much he's done it twice. 😉
The stem cell lines produced before Bush's deadline weren't generally very good, incidentally, so banning federally-funded scientists from producing new lines is a significant barrier to their work.
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyHey, that's Bush for you. It's just another instance of him "flip-flopping" on the issues. 😀
I learnt this quite recently and found it really bizarre. Surely if something is unethical it is unethical whoever is funding it. All you are doing is giving an unfair advantage to the private sector over the public, aren't you?
The stem cell lines produced before Bush's deadline weren't generally very good, incidentally, so banning federally-funded scientists from producing new lines is a significant barrier to their work.
Rich.
He's just as much a politician as Kerry, but at least we all know where he stands on pressing social issues such as welfare for the rich (he's for it) and killing Arabs (also for it).
Originally posted by zucchiniHere is one good reason for us foreigners to be greateful for George.
Please list reasons why Bush should be re-elected. I'm very interested in hearing your sincere arguments.
This election seems to provoke vitriol and name-calling. Please refrain from this type of behavior in this thread. Please be resp ...[text shortened]... or Kerry, please post on the partner thread: "Why vote for Kerry?
On the 1st of January 2001 I would have to pay NZ$2.26 in New Zealand currency to buy one american dollar. Today it only takes NZ$1.49 - which is a difference of NZ$0.77. Under the leadership of George W, the american dollar has lost a third of its value against most currencies. Go forward another four years under America's economic wizard, and I will able to buy a american dollar with a 'Pacific Peso' and still get change.
Since oil sells in US dollars, recent oil price rises in NZ$ have not been bad at all. The chinese are tied to the US exchange rate, so mannfactured goods keep dropping in price. And we owe it all to George, the deficit from his unbalanced tax cuts, and increased government spending.
The only real downside is low tourist numbers from the US - seems a holiday down here is now a bit too expensive for many of them. So how do Americans feel about the value of the dollar and the economic management of your current president?
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat's wrong with cloning?
1. Because he's opposed to stem-cell research/cloning (he is, isn't he?)
2. Because he upholds the value of marriage and family.
What's wrong with man-man/woman-woman marriage?
Either one of those being distained seems to reek of your moral values imposed upon others.
Stop it. If you don't like it, then don't do it, but don't stop others who do!
Originally posted by zucchiniWritten with the true eloquency of a Bush speech script writer. By asserting at the start that you what are about to say is 'factual', doesn't in fact make it factual.
In the absense of posts with significant lists of reasons, I propose this list. I have made a serious attempt at explaining the reasons to re-elect Bush, and keep this factual. If you find fault on a factual basis, by all means correct to vote for someone, or you just might get someone worse.
The Taliban was overthrown. There is a real hope of improvement in Afghanistan versus before the war, when the country was Islamist and its economy was built on criminal activity (to a greater degree than now).
a) The country still is Islamist!
b) The Taliban were against production of poppies. The cowboys in charge now are not against poppies, and in fact much of their power came through growing poppies. They are now producing shed loads of poppies for heroine. In fact, now they are exporting approximately 3400 tonnes of opium per year, back to the top of the world list. Would you not call this an 'economy built on criminal activity'?
He is a strong supporter of capitalism and free-markets. This is a very big issue. During Bush's tenure, the U.S. is pulling out of a recession based in the excesses of the late 90s and deepened by 9/11. Trade is expanding. This is good for the U.S and for the rest of the world.
How can u assert that capitalism and free markets are good for the rest of the world? Have you sought the opinion of Guatemalan or Vietnamese coffee growers? Indonesian child slaves working in the clothing industry? Colombian people being shot for organising Trade Unions in Coca-Cola bottling factories? When you refer to the rest of the world, do you just refer to the other developed western countries, who also have large multinationl corporations to exploit the poor for the good of their own country?
Are you including the world in its geographical sense? Just because your environment may not be as polluted as it used to be, doesn't mean that other areas aren't getting worse.
Here's a quote from chief economist at the World Bank, Lawrence Summers: "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.... I've always thought that underpopulated countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted; their air quality is vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City."
This is exactly what's going on due to free-trade and globalisation!! How many american manufacturers now have plants in Mexico, South East Asia, and other countries where laws are less stringent regarding use of toxic substances/toxic emissions.
He is a strong supporter of the military. The need for a strong military is finally obvious after a lapse of concern after the cold war ended.
Do you know that approximately $21,000 of every u.s. persons taxes has gone on developing your current nuclear program? Do you know that the u.s. currently have 1500 nuclear missiles on 15 minute alert, ready to be launchde by the great rationalist George 'Never touched a mild altering substance in my life' Bush? Do you know that you are already spending half of all discretionary spending on military? Your 'enemies' are Islamic Terrorists, but you are gearing yourselves up with weaponry that could take on an entire world army, rather than rooting our small cells of terrorists. Why?
His administration has proposed a large amount of financial aid to fight AIDs in Africa, that aid is a large portion of the total offered by the entire world.
This may be true, but its another example of a piece of propoganda. It states generic facts, without explaining the workings of the fact. The billions come with conditions. 1) All drugs bought must be bought from a US pharma company. 2) All 'aid' given is repayable at commercial rates of interest. Nice. Add to these, the fact that the u.s. threatened sanctions against Argentina, because the Argentinians were providing anti-AIDS drugs to South Africa for 25% of the price being charge by the american and European pharma companies.
I suppose I better do as Zucchini has done and invite corrections. No doubt they were inevitable anyway. 😉
D
EDIT:-sorry about the italics.
Thanks Ragnorak for taking the time to consider what I wrote and to respond.
Written with the true eloquency of a Bush speech script writer.
Sounds like a back-handed compliment. But clearly I made some mistakes in my writing as some of my intended points did not come across properly.
By asserting at the start that you what are about to say is 'factual', doesn't in fact make it factual.
I agree. I wrote: "I have made a serious attempt at ... keep[ing] this factual." Ignoring the grammatical mistake, this should be clearer with the elipses.
a) The country still is Islamist!
I thought not and still think not. I tried to look this up on the web, but without success. Perhaps it is my definition of Islamist: having a government with laws based on the laws of Islam.
b) ...Would you not call this an 'economy built on criminal activity'?
Yes. It is still predominantly a criminal economy, and yes, some U.S. policies helped create that mess. I thought "(to a greater degree than now)" made this clearer.
How can u assert that capitalism and free markets are good for the rest of the world?
I did not assert this. I was refering to trade: "Trade is expanding. This is good for the U.S and for the rest of the world." But I do believe that capitalism helps create more productive economies, and that fair free markets are better than closed markets and subsidized systems generally..
Do you know that approximately $21,000 of every u.s. persons taxes
Assume 100 million taxpayers * $21,000 ~= 2,000,000,000,000
Sounds much larger than it could possibly be. What is your source for this?
Regarding the conditions on AIDs aid: Please post a source for this. I looked on-line and failed. I have a friend who works in AIDs research and will know. I will ask him and follow up later.
Seems ridiculous doesn't it? 2,000,000,000,000! Not sure when the nuclear missile program began, but I'll put a guess at 1940(maybe wayy before then?), seeing as the first were used in 1945. That's 64 years, which would result in requiring a yearly expenditure of 31,250,000,000, obviously allowing for the change in value for money.
Assume 100 million taxpayers * $21,000 ~= 2,000,000,000,000
Sounds much larger than it could possibly be. What is your source for this?
Regarding the conditions on AIDs aid: Please post a source for this. I looked on-line and failed. I have a friend who works in AIDs research and will know. I will ask him and follow up later.
[/b]
If you look at last year then, military spending was 396,000,000,000, take off say 96,000,000,000 for currently having a warmonger as president, and you probably would look at an average military spending of 300,000,000,000. Using the same 64 years, as some kind of value to which we can relate, that turns out to be total military spending for the 64 years of: 19,200,000,000,000. Of course my results are probably way out, but take off a few trillion here or there, and you're still left with a massive hole in the tax payers pockets.
The original source of 21,000 was quoted from Stephen Schwartz' book 'Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear weapons since 1940' from The Brookings Institute.
Sorry, I got a bit carried away. It was under the Clinton administration that the sanctions were threatened. I've a feeling though that if the same situation represented it under dubya's reign, the same actions would be made. Also, I'm sure that the conditions are still in place under the bush regime.
Here's a weblink: http://www.commondreams.org/views/072300-101.htm
D