?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Reasons to vote for Bush, and my melodramatic responses to the ones I… - don't let the bastards grind you down.
taumeson
taumeson
Reasons to vote for Bush, and my melodramatic responses to the ones I disagree with.

* Because I love America.
--I've bled for my country. I've fractured multiple bones. Do I love it less because I disagree?

* Because the youth is not a block vote!
--Spite?

* Because I have no doubt whatsoever that the Iraq war was justified and correct as an action against terrorism in general.
--How so?

* Because I haven't forgotten how I felt on September 11th, 2001. I haven't forgotten what I saw, either.
--How is this related to Bush?

* Because it was not a war for oil, or for revenge. Because it was a war to preserve American freedoms and bring those same freedoms to a part of the world long overdue for democracy.
--Look how well that worked for S. Vietnam.

* Because the soldiers that come home from Iraq and Afghanistan come back with incredible stories of hope and optimism that the Bush-hating liberal media won't allow you to see. Talk to a soldier who's come back recently from Afghanistan or Iraq, and they'll tell you that the people there have such incredible optimism about their future, an optimism they'd NEVER had before. Children living in Iraq today might have a chance to live in peace one day.
--The people I've talked to who've come back from Iraq tell some pretty awful stories. None of them involve optimism on the parts of Iraqis.

* Because my opinions on stem-cell research, gay marriage, and abortion don't matter to the terrorists. Sometimes we have
--So that's it then? Only terrorism matters?

* Because I admire the President as a man.
--Eh. He's a felon recovering alcoholic who's done badly in many executive positions he's held. I'm sure we can find somebody better.

* Because the Republican National Convention was positively inspirational from beginning to end.
--Inspirational? How so? Mostly I heard "fear fear fear fear"

* Because you don't send a gold-digger from Massachusetts to do a Texas cowboy's job.
--Let's get this straight....Bush is not a cowboy. Bush is a wealthy ranch owner who employs cowboys.

* Because it's going to take at least another four years to accomplish what needs to be done in the Middle East.
--And if it doesn't get accomplished? Or gets worse? What then?

* Because never again should commuter aircraft, filled with innocent passengers, be seized and converted into guided missiles.
--And voting for W will affect this how?

* Because George W. Bush went to Baghdad for Thanksgiving dinner. That was ballsy.
--So we have a president made for photo ops. I'm surprised he didn't wear a flight suit there.

* Because he went to Yale; he doesn't get enough credit for being legitimately intelligent.
--Going to Yale is not proof of intelligence.

* Because terrorists will stop at nothing. They blow up trains, they shoot up schools, they destroy themselves and their children if it means hurting an American. Americans will have to face suicide bombers on a regular basis, just like Israelis do, unless we continue to hunt al-Qaeda as much as possible.
--I'm not sure I see a connection. And I sure as hell don't think that Israel is lolligagging when it comes to hunting Palestinian terrorists.

* Because Palestineans danced in the streets on September 11th, 2001.
--Again, how does a vote for Bush mean anything?

* Because there will be no more mass graves in Iraq.
--Except the ones that are digged for the civilians we've killed. Thousands, man...Tens of Thousands.

* Because America should appear indestructable to the rest of the world, lest an Axis of Evil decide to test us.
--Pride is a sin, folks.

* Because as a Senator, John Kerry voted against body armor for our troops. Absolutely despicable.
--Ah yes. I remember that bill. It was miraculous how it only had one item on it, about body armor for troops. There wasn't any pork or anything on that bill. It was quite amazing.

* Because as democracy takes shape in Iraq and Afghanistan, people will realize how much better it is, and it will spread through the Middle East, and as Muslim nations embrace freedom, they will no longer accept killing and fear as a foreign policy.
--Yeah, whatever.

* Because the religious right is irritating, but not nearly as irritating as the whining ingrates who protest GWB in the streets.
--Ingrates? How so?

* Because as soon as the Iraqi government wants us to leave, we leave. It's not occupation, it's cooperation. It's not a takeover, it's a partnership.
--And you believe that?

* Because George W. Bush is who he is; so he can't say "nuclear," he's from Texas. Nobody from Texas talks right. I don't talk right. But it doesn't make me or the President less intelligent.
--Actually, it does. It actually does show that you're less intelligent.

* Because we shouldn't rely on France, Germany, or the United Nations to tell us how we should protect ourselves. What the hell does France know about national defense anyway??????
--I actually know the answer to that. Do you?

* Because President Bush has pledged funding to fight AIDS in Africa, and to find alternate sources of fuel for our vehicles, to reduce our dependance on foreign fossil fuels.
--Yet he hasn't given hardly the money he pledged.

* Because I believe Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, and Tom Ridge are doing an outstanding job with their near-impossible responsibilities.
--OOH BOY. Rumsfeld, at least, needs to go.
38 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
wiffler From: wiffler Date: November 2nd, 2004 08:03 am (UTC) (Link)
* Because I haven't forgotten how I felt on September 11th, 2001. I haven't forgotten what I saw, either.
--How is this related to Bush?


You could say his administration did little to stop it.
swolfe From: swolfe Date: November 2nd, 2004 08:25 am (UTC) (Link)
* Because George W. Bush is who he is; so he can't say "nuclear," he's from Texas. Nobody from Texas talks right. I don't talk right. But it doesn't make me or the President less intelligent.
--Actually, it does. It actually does show that you're less intelligent.


haha, good one :)
christy_p From: christy_p Date: November 2nd, 2004 08:54 am (UTC) (Link)

to steve and nathaniel

he does say nuclear wrong, and sadly, a lot of people from texas say it wrong, but...geez, dialects are all around.

ok, so yeah, i'm sure there are a lot of words that i say differently than someone from, oh i dunno, NJ? 'Tournament' & 'water' are just 2 examples but neither way to say it makes either one of us less intelligent. although i will argue that you say tournament correctly and i say water correctly.

:-D
flavobean From: flavobean Date: November 2nd, 2004 09:03 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: to steve and nathaniel

Alright... You got a point, and I give the man a hard time, but pronouncing shit wrong seems like a cheap trick.

But keep this in mind: No one in his family has that Texas accent. Not his dad, mom, brothers or sisters. He went to some of the finest boarding schools on the eastern seaboard.

It's just fishy.

What isn't fishy is when he's contradicted and insists that he's right. Such as when a senator told him that the Swiss were neutral, not the Swedes.

The sign of great leadership is seeing your follies acknowledging you made them, and ensure that you don't make them again.
christy_p From: christy_p Date: November 2nd, 2004 09:06 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: to steve and nathaniel

absolutely true.

i wasn't trying to defend bush, just the part about pronouncing things differently somehow makes people stupid.
area_man From: area_man Date: November 2nd, 2004 01:33 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: to steve and nathaniel

It's not so much his mispronunciation of words that makes him stupid, but his constant misuse of the english language. I have never heard anyone, not even the mentally challenged kids I worked with while doing community service for confirmation, speak english as poorly as George W. Bush does.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm

Why does he make up words (misunderestimate)? And why, for the love of God, does he have such trouble conjugating the verb "to be"?

Intelligent people do not have trouble conjugating basic verbs.
christy_p From: christy_p Date: November 2nd, 2004 01:35 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: to steve and nathaniel

and THAT i can agree wholeheartedly with.
strangeworldcat From: strangeworldcat Date: November 9th, 2004 02:04 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: to steve and nathaniel

oy you havnent been listening to some of the black people i have, constantly mangeling the english langue and its not just a few uneducated its people who've graduated highscool and gotten educations.
just because you have trouble conjugating verbs does not mean you are stupid, i probably make tons of mistakes, adn i am very smart.
area_man From: area_man Date: November 9th, 2004 02:19 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: to steve and nathaniel

Nope. It means you're dumb. Especially if you choose to be a public speaker and can't speak properly in front of an audience.

I've know plenty of African Americans who speak in slang with their friends and on the street, but when they are speaking in front of people they turn on the perfect English.

By the way, we're talking about the leader of the free world here. The president of the United States should not have trouble with the English language! Period.
strangeworldcat From: strangeworldcat Date: November 12th, 2004 06:39 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: to steve and nathaniel

and because you're what ever you are doesnt that mean that you shouldnt have trouble with the english languge either. if we are going to start requiering presidents to be perfect then i'm sorry nobody will be president.

though now the presidency means being a public speaker that is not what it is about. would you want some one who was a perfect speaker persuaded everyone he was the best person for the job, but when he got there he shot everybody he saw, not wouldnt that be lovely, but oh, he's the best speaker in the world we should let him stay even though he's murdered dozens of people.

Language is an art that is not taught very much anymore. If you saw some of the people they have for english teachers in highschools today then you would know that its a mirical any body could speek it properly.

my point is perfect command of the english language has nothing to do with the job of president. Also if you ask the English they would all say we have horrible grammer. And they are the ones who originated the language so shouldnt they be the final say in what we speek like. I know you might say something like we are far removed or the like from the English but, if you want to get into grammer and perfect english we would have to go back to the original beginning of the languages, in fact shouldnt we be speeking some other langue all together because english is a corrupiton of several languages put together.
twopoundradio From: twopoundradio Date: November 16th, 2004 01:16 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: to steve and nathaniel

I wish there weren't so many people that think they are tough and still have so little nice things to say. In light of these events area_man I think this may be one of the worst posts I have ever read.

Your comment is of the same state of mind that insists Moses was a great speaker when confronting Pharaoh. Moses on the other hand was right. Are you willing to take the risk that those who struggle with the language or don't really care are somehow stupid? You should be more understanding or shall I shread your intellectual shortcomings further?
swolfe From: swolfe Date: November 12th, 2004 11:30 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: to steve and nathaniel

havennt
mangeling
langue
its (twice)
highscool
adn
+5 punctuation errors

i probably make tons of mistakes

true

adn i am very smart

funny the way people define "smart" these days.
bumbletbw From: bumbletbw Date: November 2nd, 2004 07:06 pm (UTC) (Link)
I didn't have time to run through all of them before I posted it. I addeed two things off the top of my head. I agreed with some more than others, and possibly some very little at all, but I generally keep my mouth shut on my journal with such a flamboyant political attitude. It's crunch time, so I did what I had tome to do.

I'd go through the semantics with you on some of them, but not right now. I've had one hour sleep and been at the poll all day, and I came up with two points, one of which you had an issue with. I simply refuse to be put in a demographic, and I think it's really fucking demeaning to be expected to fall into whatever groupthink the television says people my age should have.

I'm tired, we'll talk later.
bumbletbw From: bumbletbw Date: November 5th, 2004 12:54 pm (UTC) (Link)
* Because the soldiers that come home from Iraq and Afghanistan come back with incredible stories of hope and optimism that the Bush-hating liberal media won't allow you to see. Talk to a soldier who's come back recently from Afghanistan or Iraq, and they'll tell you that the people there have such incredible optimism about their future, an optimism they'd NEVER had before. Children living in Iraq today might have a chance to live in peace one day.

--The people I've talked to who've come back from Iraq tell some pretty awful stories. None of them involve optimism on the parts of Iraqis.

I've had an opportunity to talk to a few people that have come back from fighting. What I've found is that the Nasty Guard guys and some reservists are pretty pissed off about the whole thing, whereas the active soldiers seem to be a more positive about the situation. The few guard members I've talked to are pissed for various reasons, mostly about the stop loss, but I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them. That's part of the deal, you give them your ass and you're all stuck in the same boat. Guard members have this mindset that being in the guard means that they'll never see combat, and they just get their check to go to school and quit. Well, like my father and grandfather said, "The military is a great life ... as long as there's not a war on." Reservists are sort of the same way, but not nearly as whiny ... well some of them. One guy in my dad's old unit was bitching about being called up. My father had pointed out to him that there had been another active combat heavy engineer company in place before 1994, which is why they weren't mobilized outside of a few specialists in Desert Storm, however he still blamed Bush for having sent them there. He blamed Bush for his CO's incompetence because they didn't have desert camo until they had been in Iraq for three weeks. Both sets though weren't very positive about the situation in Iraq. They talked about being harassed and seeing people lying dead in the streets.

A couple of marines and airmen that were there seemed to tell a different story. They talked about how they were generally warmly received, but that a lot of people were wary ... they didn't really blame them though, who could? The active guys seemed to have a little more faith in our mission over there. Still, it all depends on who oyou talk to. I have a friend here at WVU whose grandparents still live in Baghdad, and according to them that the people were much happier to have Saddam in a jail cell.

* Because it's going to take at least another four years to accomplish what needs to be done in the Middle East.

--And if it doesn't get accomplished? Or gets worse? What then?

Then we reevaluate our situation. I don't think a year can give us the objective view that we need on this situation. I would hope that we can install a regime that won't enslave or exploit its people, maybe then they'll get the food and medicine that the US and other UN nations try to provide them. I personally believe that it's going to take more than 5 years, I don't believe we can establish legitimacy with the nations that we have now in the coalition, but I think that the UN does not have the fortitude to build a nation, and try to keep it together for fear of stepping on someone's cultural toes.

* Because America should appear indestructable to the rest of the world, lest an Axis of Evil decide to test us.

--Pride is a sin, folks.

Yes, but confidence is an all too powerful tool in international politics. I would say that we're a proud people, with reason. We are not without our faults, but I think that we need confidence in accordance with our abilities in order to maintain our strength, and as Aristotle said, "Peace is a virtue of the strong."
bumbletbw From: bumbletbw Date: November 5th, 2004 12:55 pm (UTC) (Link)

Part 2

* Because we shouldn't rely on France, Germany, or the United Nations to tell us how we should protect ourselves. What the hell does France know about national defense anyway??????

--I actually know the answer to that. Do you?

They'll commit an inconsequential amount of troops like they did in Beirut so as not to offend the millions of ethnic muslims that populate their major cities, and then complain about us not doing the right thing when something bad happens. What's worse, fucking up by trying to help someone and fail, or to leave them be knowing full and well what is happening in their borders? I know the latter does apply to the US as well, but better late than never.

* Because it was not a war for oil, or for revenge. Because it was a war to preserve American freedoms and bring those same freedoms to a part of the world long overdue for democracy.

--Look how well that worked for S. Vietnam.

The difference between Iraq/Afghanistan and Vietnam aside from geography are twofold: 1.) The cultural aspect of their societies. These cultures do not believe in civil war. They have fought most of their internal conflicts with mercenaries. The Vietnamese didn't really have a problem with killing anyone, even 6 year old children. The Vietnamese had been constantly invaded throughout history and their plan for victory was to "Die as long as it was necessary." 2.) We did not get involved in this conflict because of Truman Doctrine, we became involved because of the Monroe Doctrine, and Roosevelt's corollary. Our duties to the western hemisphere have more or less become broader in the world considering we are arguably the only superpower left. The problem is with this power, the more we weild it, the more nations become wary of us. So it's an international balancing act, but I think we're taking steps in the right direction to initiate change in the Middle East.

I can't really word that correctly enough to fit what the idea is in my head, so feel free to rip that last one to shreds. I'll read, we'll discuss. GTG.
38 comments or Leave a comment