Reasons to vote for Bush?

Billy Kovachy

But lets talk about the Kurds who the US fuked over by refusing them a change to powershare in Iraq or have their own country so they could get Turkey in to help them fight the war.

That has to be the most hilarious statement I have heard about the whole iraq thingy.Iam glad some humour is being injected into this forum I think I was getting too serious about this issue.

Vote #1 for Bush.
Reasons:
Its just the right thing to do

bonkey

Billy Kovachy wrote:

I think I was getting too serious about this issue.

Vote #1 for Bush.
Reasons:
Its just the right thing to do

This is satire, right?

Hobbes

Billy Kovachy wrote:

That has to be the most hilarious statement I have heard about the whole iraq thingy.Iam glad some humour is being injected into this forum I think I was getting too serious about this issue.

Its funny because it is true. Over 80% of the Kurds (out of 1.7 million total) voted for independance. Turkey said they would only join the US led war if they (the US) stopped this.

The Kurds had to threaten to boycott the Iraq elections and cut ties with Baghdad to get heard. As they were getting screwed in the new Iraq constitution.

Of course you would know this if you watched the news.

Its just the right thing to do

In other words you have nothing positive to put forwards.

dahamsta

(Not exactly on-topic, but I didn't think it warranted a new thread.)

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

adam

StickyMcGinty

in response to

When exactly does he call Americans stupid?

from http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html

Much of Moore’s Manichaeism will be yawningly familiar to anyone accustomed to the weird myopia of the far Left these days. America—or “the corporation known as The United States of America,” as Moore puts it—is inhabited by a race of greedy, uncaring, racist freaks, equipped with what Moore calls “the stupid gene.” Above all, Americans are violent. “Guns don’t kill people; Americans kill people,” Moore has said. Worldwide, people suffer for only one reason: not religious or political tyranny, but the malevolent policies of stupid white American men, descended from paranoid Puritans and covetous Italians.

and

How does Moore insulting other countries make it world war III?

my opinion on if this is "WW3" of not is nothing to do with moores comments, i just think that this is not just america v iraq, its a coalition v iraq, afghanistan, and other sporadic rebels. i believe all of us are in danger, no matter where in the world we are, as proved by a bomb threat (in todays herald ) on the Naples -> dublin plane yesterday.

i believe we're all in danger, even if it is minute in some places.

??? How exactly? What are you talking about? It is a known fact they were flown out of the country by the US government at the request of the Saudi Ambassdor.

Did the 9/11 commision report somehow change history? Please point out in the commission report where this was false.

it didnt change history, obviously. the flight took place, but moore said it was done under a veil of secrecy. The FBI and secret service made sure that none of the members of the flight were on the terror watch list. their safety was feared for in the us. i'm not doubting history, just pointing out that MOORE is misleading, again.

Is questioning the system not an integral part of democracy?

Sociaism is on the left, fascism is on the right, how does Moore plan to simultaneously bring about both?

i already apologised for my facist remarks, i was just getting thick with the pure ignorance on this forum, and all the people who cant have a proper argument without laying in to me! like i said I'M NEW TO THIS FORUM, so how about giving me a chance?? leniancy? i din't think i'd have to provide every source, apologies. you all have very pretentious notions sometimes, that your all infallable.

only a few of you have actually responded to my comments with decency, the rest have been insulting. we all have to start somewhere!

Hobbes

, people suffer for only one reason: not religious or political tyranny, but the malevolent policies of stupid white American men

Sorry but how is that insulting Americans? Do you mean he is calling all Americans stupid? or White? or Men? Or that all Americans make the policies? He was clearly referring to Bush and the administration in the movie. Something you would know if you saw the movie.

Moore has a whole "white guy" chip on his shoulder, but his personal comments shouldn't detract from the facts in the movie.

i believe all of us are in danger, no matter where in the world we are, as proved by a bomb threat (in todays herald ) on the Naples -> dublin plane yesterday.

Someone wrote Bomb 9/11 on a napkin and left it in a toilet. That isn't a threat, that is someone acting the azzhole on the plane. They had so much of this sh!t happening in the few days after 9/11 that they passed a law that if you do something like this you can face 25 years in jail.

it didnt change history, obviously. the flight took place, but moore said it was done under a veil of secrecy. The FBI and secret service made sure that none of the members of the flight were on the terror watch list.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Moore was correct. To quote 9/11 timeline

September 13, 2001 (F): After a complete airflight ban in the US begun during the 9/11 attacks, some commercial flights begin resuming this day. However, all private flights are still banned from flying. Nonetheless, some private flights do take place, carrying Saudi royalty and members of the bin Laden family to transit points so they can leave the country. These flights take place even as fighters escort down three other private planes attempting to fly. Most of the Saudi royals and bin Ladens in the US at the time are high school or college students and young professionals. New York Times, 9/30/01 , Vanity Fair, 10/03 ] One of the flights is a Lear Jet that leaves from a private Raytheon hangar in Tampa, Florida (see also September 25, 2001) and takes three Saudis to Lexington, Kentucky. [ Tampa Tribune, 10/5/01 ] Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US who is so close to the Bush family that he is nicknamed “Bandar Bush,” pushes for and helps arrange the flights at the request of frightened Saudis. Vanity Fair, 10/03 , CBC, 10/29/03 (D) ] For two years, a violation of the air ban is denied by the FAA, FBI, and White House, and decried as an urban legend except for one article detailing them in a Tampa newspaper ( Tampa Tribune, 10/5/01 ). Finally in 2003, Richard Clarke, National Security Council Chief of Counterterrorism confirms the existence of these flights, and Secretary of State Powell confirms them as well. [ Vanity Fair, 10/03 , MSNBC, 9/7/03 ] But the White House is still silent on the matter. [ New York Times, 9/4/03 ] The Saudis are evacuated to Saudi Arabia over the next several days (see September 14-19, 2001).

September 14-19, 2001: 2004-04-08 Following secret flights inside the US that are in violation of a national private airplane flight ban (see September 13, 2001 (F)), members of the bin Laden family and Saudi royalty quietly depart the US. The flights are only publicly acknowledged after all the Saudis have left. [ Boston Globe, 9/21/01 , New York Times, 9/30/01 ] About 140 Saudis, including around 24 members of the bin Laden family, are passengers in these flights. Most of their identities aren't known. However, some of the passengers include:

1. The son of the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan. Sultan is being sued for alleged complicity in the 9/11 plot[/b] (see August 15, 2002). [ Tampa Tribune, 10/5/01 ] He is alleged to have contributed at least $6 million since 1994 to four charities that finance al-Qaeda. [ Vanity Fair, 10/03 ]
2. Khalil bin Laden. He has been investigated by the Brazilian government for possible terrorist connections. [ Vanity Fair, 10/03 ]
3.
Abdullah bin Laden [ABC]
Abdullah and
4. Omar bin Laden, cousins of bin Laden. Abdullah was the US director of the Muslim charity World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). The governments of India, Pakistan, Philippines, and Bosnia have all accused WAMY of funding terrorism. These two relatives were investigated by the FBI in 1996 in a case involving espionage, murder, and national security (September 11, 1996). Their case is reopened on September 19 right after 9/11 they leave the country. [ Vanity Fair, 10/03 ] Remarkably, four of the 9/11 hijackers briefly live in the town of Falls Church, Virginia, three blocks from the WAMY office headed by Abdullah bin Laden. [ BBC Newsnight, 11/6/01 ]
5. Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen. He is a prominent Saudi official who is in the same hotel as three of the hijackers the night before 9/11. He leaves on one of the first flights to Saudi Arabia before the FBI can properly interview him about this (see September 10, 2001 (U)).


So tell me why Bush let these people go without being questioned?

mycroft

i din't think i'd have to provide every source, apologies. you all have very pretentious notions sometimes, that your all infallable.

Actually we don't, thats why regular users to the board post links supporting their argument, the polar opposite of "assumed infabability". Wandering around here shouting about fascism, socialism and Moores attempt to bring about both of them, shows you know nothing about all three.

The FBI and secret service made sure that none of the members of the flight were on the terror watch list. their safety was feared for in the us. i'm not doubting history, just pointing out that MOORE is misleading, again.

Call me nuts but thats the same sercet services and FBI who failed to spot the attack (or rather field agents noted it, but their superiors failed to act.) And seeing as in the weeks that followed it was rapidly clear that Bin Laden was still in contact with parts of his family, I'd have wanted to have a quiet word in their ear.

its a coalition v iraq, afghanistan, and other sporadic rebels. i believe all of us are in danger, no matter where in the world we are, as proved by a bomb threat (in todays herald ) on the Naples -> dublin plane yesterday.

So how is bombing a country further into the stone age and then invading a toothless dicator helping win the war on terror? Current CIA and FBI reports and senior members of the Bush administration say the world is a more dangerous place now.

So, to bring the thread back on topic. If Bush is making the world more dangerous, how is he winning the war on terror?

only a few of you have actually responded to my comments with decency, the rest have been insulting. we all have to start somewhere!

I don't think anyone has been insulting, they've demolished your more spurious statements.

pork99

I'd vote for him because the US really needs a good crisis manager.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=131

"The country is under attack!!!"

"OK I'll just sit here with dopey expression on my face for seven minutes, that should take care of things!"

StickyMcGinty

pork99 wrote:

I'd vote for him because the US really needs a good crisis manager.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=131

"The country is under attack!!!"

"OK I'll just sit here with dopey expression on my face for seven minutes, that should take care of things!"

you think kerry would have done something else? you think that when pearl harbour was attacked in 1941 that Roosevelt didnt take 7 minutes to soak in what had just happened? bush was "on the spot", to the extent that no one has ever been before! i would have thought that a good president would show calmness, until being briefed on the incident in full as soon as possible, behind closed doors.

i think that criticisim of bush pausing for 7 minutes is very harsh.

Hobbes

i think that criticisim of bush pausing for 7 minutes is very harsh.

It was more then 7 minutes. He hung about in the school for over 20 minutes for a photo-op. He had to be dragged out by Secret service.

He was told about the first attack before going into the school. I saw the second plane hit, and when I did I knew very well that the US was under attack.

But he sat there. He should of left. Partly because he would be a target* (not to mention the children) but also because it was only him that could issue the order to force all planes to land.

He is supposed to be the president of the United States. That means a very special kind of person who is able to lead. Not a person who feels they need to spend time getting their photograph taken while people are dying. He clearly showed he could not lead.

* There is proof that AQ disguised as a press crew actually attempted to assinate Bush before he left to go to the school but the Secret Service wouldn't let them near him.

dahamsta

Hobbes wrote:

* There is proof that AQ disguised as a press crew actually attempted to assinate Bush before he left to go to the school but the Secret Service wouldn't let them near him.

Never heard that Hobbes, got any links?

adam

Hobbes

dahamsta wrote:

Never heard that Hobbes, got any links?

adam

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/timeline_bush.html
(6:00 a.m.): President Bush has just spent the night at Colony Beach and Tennis Resort on Longboat Key, Florida. Surface-to-air missiles have been placed on the roof of the resort. [ Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02 ] Bush wakes up around 6:00 a.m. and is preparing for his morning jog. [ MSNBC, 10/27/02 , New York Times, 9/16/01 , Telegraph, 12/16/01 ] A van occupied by men of Middle Eastern descent pull up to the Colony stating they have a “poolside” interview with the president. They are turned away for not having an appointment. [ Longboat Observer, 9/26/01 ] [ Time, 8/4/02 (B) ]

There is another website somewhere that goes in more detail (don't have the link anymore) but it cited that similar assination attempt was done elsewhere on Afganistan head.

Billy Kovachy

The reasons why I find your remarks about Turkey going into Iraq as extremely funny is that the US want an independant kurdistan its there secret plan b.When did the Turks say they were going to war with Iraq, last time I look they were having problems even getting basing rights.Its the Turks who are screwing over the Kurds it always will be. The US seems to have done everything possible to see that a Kurdish autonomous republic will be created in Northern Iraq in 2005. Indeed, there is no doubt that the Kurdish leaders will block the ratification of a new constitution in 2005 if the document does not contain a point which creates Kurdistan.Washington has been angering Ankara constantly about the situation in northern Iraq.The Turks pulling the usually "but we are nato buddies".The Kurdish question has caused great concern for the middle-east because the Kurds which number approximately 25-30 million live compactly in the border areas of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria.So really the states have no real issue its the surrounding countries.Every time a small country or minority gets screwed over by a bigger country its the US fault.Not every time iam afraid.The reason why the UN resolution for war was not passed was because france and russia had large investments in the region.Then the french got all freaky about it and every left wing liberal got in defense of Saddam Hussein and secretly hoped for another vietnam war.Didnt get it so the "I told you it was going to be another vietnam" turned into "I told you it was going to be no WoMDs".

The reason for voting for bush well after years and years of creating despots like Saddam in the geopolitical scene that was the cold war against russia, they made a huge foreign policy shift that i was against and got rid of one (really was shock).
His administration has to be one of the transparant in a long time.Extremely bad with pulling one over on the media.Is this good yea considering the republicans probably have someone like kissinger in the wings waiting to come into power.Now theres someone to complain about.
And because i dont like Micheal Moore you tell me to read/watch/listen to the news some of the crap he comes out with suggests he watches the news in an alternate universe.
Look at the alternative Kerry he has repeatedly said that if people want to bring up his war record then they should "bring it on",and when they do he does not like it.Why file a complaint when he himself brought up his military service as the main reason to vote for him.He says he was in Cambodia and everybody knows that the US was not at war with Cambodia(kissinger made sure of that).They asked bill clinton how does he think of the Democratic canditate and he barely said anything positive about him.

Hobbes

Billy Kovachy wrote:

The reasons why I find your remarks about Turkey going into Iraq as extremely funny is that the US want an independant kurdistan its there secret plan b.

It must be so secret that the Kurds and the administration don't know about it.

From Whitehouse transcripts. I am going to go out on a limb and assume you will read it (rather then cutting and paste). Near the end a reporter points out that the majority of Kurds want a seperate state and Rice states that this isn't going to happen.

You can also read it with a kurdish editing here..
http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=5395

Of course you seem to know more, so please post where you got this information from?

When did the Turks say they were going to war with Iraq, last time I look they were having problems even getting basing rights.

Turks refused to give flyover/base rights to the US unless they paid a large sum of cash and also did not help the Kurds in getting independance. Also to deal with the PKK. As well as taking over Northern Iraq (which is Kurdish area).

I am not sure what you are going on about basing rights, as the US bribed Turkey to join the Iraq war and Turkey has in fact moved its troops into northern Iraq. This is very old news.

The US seems to have done everything possible to see that a Kurdish autonomous republic will be created in Northern Iraq in 2005.

Again can you quote your sources to that?

every left wing liberal got in defense of Saddam Hussein and secretly hoped for another vietnam war. Didnt get it so the "I told you it was going to be another vietnam" turned into "I told you it was going to be no WoMDs".

What kind of BS is that? To say that Liberals (I am assuming you refer to Americans as well) want lots of people to die? They don't have to go "We told you", everyone bloody knew there were no WMD including Bush.

like Saddam in the geopolitical scene that was the cold war against russia,

Wasn't Saddam supported to go against Iran, not Russia.

And because i dont like Micheal Moore you tell me to read/watch/listen to the news some of the crap he comes out with suggests he watches the news in an alternate universe.

So because you don't like Moore, you refuse to actually listen to any news? Moore quotes his news sources, so I don't know how you can say alternate universe. I can only take it that you don't even bother to read/watch anything moore does.

I watch Foxnews. I dispise the fact it claims it is a news station but I still watch and then I actually research other sites to see what parts are full of crap.

Why file a complaint when he himself brought up his military service as the main reason to vote for him.

Because he says the people in question are lying. That is why he is filing a complaint. But it is a great distraction to get away from Bushes war record (which was mysteriously destroyed this year).

Your inability to give anything good reasons to vote for Bush is just astounding. So far we have.
- Because it is the right thing to do.
- The other guys might have a hidden Kissenger

dahamsta

Hobbes wrote:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/timeline_bush.html

Bizarre. Thanks Hobbes.

mycroft

you think kerry would have done something else? you think that when pearl harbour was attacked in 1941 that Roosevelt didnt take 7 minutes to soak in what had just happened? bush was "on the spot", to the extent that no one has ever been before! i would have thought that a good president would show calmness, until being briefed on the incident in full as soon as possible, behind closed doors.

Actually theres a strong argument that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Habour before hand. The fact that the carrier group (the japs main target) just happened to go on manevours the day before hand leaving just old warships ready to be decommissioned at the base is highly suspicious.

It's also interesting to know how your argument has degraded

"The Saudi/Bin Laden flights never happened"

Hobbes proves you wrong

to

"Well they were never secret"

Hobbes proves you wrong

to

"Quit ragging on Bush for the 7 minutes"

Hobbes (surprise surprise) proves you wrong again.

Anyway now onto someone with a deranged point.

The US seems to have done everything possible to see that a Kurdish autonomous republic will be created in Northern Iraq in 2005. Indeed

Again can you prove this? Also Bush extraordinary comments at the EU summit, held here! Which was pretty much an attempt to strong arm Turkey's EU membership, a thank you for help if there ever was one.

The US Administration shafted the Kurds under his dad and they're shafting the Kurds today. Hell it's a tradition.

Look at the alternative Kerry he has repeatedly said that if people want to bring up his war record then they should "bring it on",and when they do he does not like it.Why file a complaint when he himself brought up his military service as the main reason to vote for him.

And Doonesbury has offered €10,000 dollars (to go to the USO) to anyone who can offer concrete proof that they served with Bush in Alabama, no one has come forward.

The swift vote veterans for truth, does not contain one person who served in the field with Kerry, and it's ironic that Bush's cohorts are attacking his military record while bush still can't find his.

he was in Cambodia and everybody knows that the US was not at war with Cambodia(kissinger made sure of that).

Might mention that to Kissenger who arranged for the secret bombing of Cambodia, btw both Cheney and Rumsfeld where parts of that administration.

His administration has to be one of the transparant in a long time.

Thats utter bollo*ks. This is the administration that said "go fuk yourself " to a senator on a commitee investigating it. This is an administration were less money was spent investigating Enron and halliburton the were Clinton's stain was on a dress.

And for the hard of thinking Enron is exactly how Lay got on the energy board, and Halliburton is where how did Cheney's old company get reward with a massive uncontested rebuilding contract.

They asked bill clinton how does he think of the Democratic canditate and he barely said anything positive about him.

Who is they and whats your source?

Or are you going to accuse us of living in some "alternative reality"

Snort.

pork99

Good grief! The Madness of King George;

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?file=article&name=News&op=modload&sid=772

“George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call 'the dry drunk'. His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use.”-- Professor Katherine van Wormer, author of Addiction Treatment

StickyMcGinty

you really have it in for my, mycroft, don't ye?

Anyway now onto someone with a deranged point.

hobbes: fair point, never heard bout the plot to assasinate him, well pointed out.

moores movie (to my recollection) doesnt point out that he hung around, he just gave him a thrashing regarding the 7 minutes he paused for.

Transcript from Fahrenheit 9/11 from http://www.viscidity.com/fahrenheit/transcript.htm

MOORE:

As the attacks took place, Mr. Bush was on his was to an elementary school in Florida. When informed of the first plane hitting the world trade center, where terrorists had struck just eight years prior, Mr. Bush decided to go ahead with his photo opportunity.

TEACHER:

Say Good Morning to Mr. Bush.

STUDENTS:

Good Morning Mr. Bush.

TEACHER:

Read this word the fast way, get ready!

STUDENTS:

MAD!

TEACHER:

Yes, Mad, Get Ready!

STUDENTS:

HAD!

Bush:

YEAH! (CLAPS)

MOORE:

When the second plane hit the tower, his chief of staff entered the classroom and told Mr. Bush the nation is under attack. Not knowing what to do, with no one telling him what to do, and no secret service rushing in to take him to safety, Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read 'My Pet Goat' with the children.

CHILDREN:

(reading the book)

SUBTITLE:

9:05 AM

SUBTITLE:

9:07 AM

SUBTITLE:

9:09 AM

MOORE:

Nearly seven minutes passed with nobody doing anything.

SUBITITLE:

9:11 AM

SUBTITLE:

9:12 AM

MOORE:

As Bush sat in that Florida classroom, was he wondering if maybe he should've shown up to work more often? Should he have held at least one meeting since taking office to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counter-terrorism? Or maybe Mr. Bush was wondering why he had cut terrorism funding from the FBI? Or perhaps he should've just read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6th, 2001. Which said that Osama Bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.

But maybe he wasn't worried about the terrorist threat because the title of the report was too vague

Billy Kovachy

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,446392,00.html
http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_807684.html?menu=entertainment
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/456910.html
Obivously Clintons erection was the downfall of the northern ireland peace process

just two questions a simple (A) or (B) will do.

Is the current and future prospects of iraq better (remember the kurds yea I know trick question haha)
A)now
B)under Saddam

Is the current and future prospects of Afghanistan better
A)now
B)under the Taliban

but this will be drawn into a big huge topic id write about kerrys crap what about him giving out about free speech and not liking people having different accounts to him but iam tired and drunk.But id say it would be prefect if they just swapped sides the democratics love draft dogers and the republicans just love so-called heroes,aah but life is not that simple.

Hobbes

Billy Kovachy wrote:

Obivously Clintons erection was the downfall of the northern ireland peace process

What downfall of the northern Ireland peace process? It has failed? please explain how. Actually a better explanation is wtf are you talking about? Are you saying because of a dress destroying a peace process we should vote for Bush?

Or were you going for an attack on Moore, instead of proving why it is better to vote for Bush?

Is the current and future prospects of iraq better (remember the kurds yea I know trick question haha)
A)now
B)under Saddam

It isn't really a valid question, as like most things in life there are more then two options. However the Iraqis are having a bad time at the moment, as well as US forces (and forigeners in Iraq). You have the US taking cheap oil after rewarding itself contracts to repair the damage that Iraqis are going to have to pay for, but don't have a choice of who they want to fix the damage.

Is the current and future prospects of Afghanistan better
A)now
B)under the Taliban

Same deal, however if you bothered to read what was posted ages ago you would know that Afganistan is still a mess. Add to that the anti-American feelings there for the occupation and allowing the new regime to jail innocent people for US$ cash. Let us also not forget that the drugs trade from Afganistan is at an all time high.

Look. Let me make this clear. If you make accusations back them up with sources. So far you have ignored any requests so far to back up your facts.

vinnyl wrote:

moores movie (to my recollection) doesnt point out that he hung around, he just gave him a thrashing regarding the 7 minutes he paused for.

Yea, you have to ignore Moores personal comments in the movie and then research what was said. For example, did you know that for a long time it was assumed that Bush only hung around for 2 minutes after being told. (ref: memoryhole).

Btw, to read more on the possible assination attempt you can read here

pork99

Why pick on Bush when John Ashcroft is no picnic either? In fact he's a complete c*nt:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/25/doj_goes_after_filetraders/

mycroft

VinnyL wrote:

you really have it in for my, mycroft, don't ye?

Actually you'll find my comment rederanged pov refers to Billy's suggestion that theres a secret plot to create a kurdish republic.

Apologises for the confusion

but seeing as you gave me negative reputation points on this thread, I am wondering,

Can you provide a link supporting your previous comments.

1. Micheal Moore is unpatriotic.

2. Micheal Moore has been dismissed by most americans have seen through this and Bush has scored points of this.

3. Micheal Moore wants to turn america in a socialist state.

Batbat

Seaneh wrote:

Reasons to Vote Bush.

#1 He isn't John Kerry.
#2 He isn't John Kerry.
#3 He isn't John Kerry.


I think you get the idea.

you sicken me, but I guess you just dont know any better

ionapaul

As far as I can see, these would be some of the main reasons to vote for either Bush and Kerry for American voters:

Bush:
- He is a strong leader
- He is decisive and sticks to his guns
- He puts American interests and defence above satisfying world opinion
- He is a religious man with deeply-held convictions
- He is anti-Gay marriage/rights
- He has lowered taxes and promises more of the same
- He is pro-business
- His wife is the type (reserved, dedicated, steadfast, stand-by-your-man) that many would view as making a good first lady
- He believes in the American way and the values that back it up

Kerry:
- He is a war hero
- He is an intellectual
- He promises to undo some of the current administration's tax cuts, particularly those for the wealthy
- He promises a number of reforms that are attractive to lower- and middle-class voters
- He doesn't have any particularly revolutionary goals (so won't rock the boat too much)
- He is pro-business
- He would work to put the US economy back on a more even-keel (reduce the deficit)
- He would like the US to be respected and admired again (by Western countries at least)
- He may roll-back some of the draconian measures enacted by the current administration
- He believes in the American way and the values that back it up

At least those are few off the top of my head. I am definitely not saying I believe in any of the above reasons, but they are some of the reasons US voters will vote for either candidate. I personally hope Kerry wins in November.

bonkey

I find it interesting that you list being anti-gay marrigage and anti-gay rights as a reason to vote for someone. Surely its a reason to vote for them only if you believe that gay marriage and gay rights are fundamentally wrong.

For someone who believes gays should have these rights, Bush's stance is most certainly not a reason to vote for him, but rather for Kerry.

The reason I mention it is because you don't list Kerry's stance on the issue as a reason to vote for him. Clearly, if he is of the same stance as Bush, then the same logic you used should make it no reason to vote for either. Conversely, if you disagree with Bush and Kerry doesn't have the same stance, its a reason to vote for Kerry.

Interesting list tho....must get back to it when I have time.

jc

p.s. As to the two "A or B" questions, my answer would be the same in both cases :

Ask again later, but also ask yourself if the prospects in each case is as good as it could have been had a different course of action been taken in each nation.

jc

mycroft

He believes in the American way and the values that back it up

See I always find that argument fascinating. Conservates always talk as if they own the definition of American "Values" and "way of life". They are the ones forging ahead with these "ideals" perserving them.

American is a multifaciated society, and liberals and leftwingers are going to have to wrestle that they can hold different viewpoints to the conservates and still hold true to "american values"

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

For someone who believes gays should have these rights, Bush's stance is most certainly not a reason to vote for him, but rather for Kerry.

Makes you think then when Cheny is actually for gay marriages and Bush said Cheny is capable of being president.

ionapaul

bonkey wrote:

I find it interesting that you list being anti-gay marrigage and anti-gay rights as a reason to vote for someone. Surely its a reason to vote for them only if you believe that gay marriage and gay rights are fundamentally wrong.

For someone who believes gays should have these rights, Bush's stance is most certainly not a reason to vote for him, but rather for Kerry.

Well as far as I can see it, Bush's anti-gay stance will win him many more votes than Kerry's not-as-much-anti-gay stance. I certainly think there are more votes to be won playing a strictly anti-gay card rather than a pro-gay card. 'Tis messed-up but them's the rules they play by. Pandering to the rednecks and racists isn't my cup of tea but they represent a lot of votes...

Just to make myself clear on that list again - these are not reasons I would give for choosing either candidate* - however, I see these as reasons why the American voters will vote. Just trying to answer the original poster's question.

*I would never vote for Bush, for many different reasons, not least his anti-gay rights plank

StickyMcGinty

1. Micheal Moore is unpatriotic

i thought this is quite evident when he calls his own people "stupid". i gave a link to this earlier in the thread.

2. Micheal Moore has been dismissed by most americans have seen through this and Bush has scored points of this.

i read this on a newspaper in miami when i was over there on holidays, and many americans i asked the question to had the same consensus. i'll dig up the link as soon as i can.

3. Micheal Moore wants to turn america in a socialist state.

why should i need a link for this, this is MY OPINION. i dont think he has been too ambiguous on the fact that he wants a left wing, socialist state. just my opinion.

but seeing as you gave me negative reputation points on this thread

along with the positive one i've given you for apologising 9(asap)..... i too am now apologising.

we seem to have gotten off to a bad start mycroft, hope we've a clean slate now!

also i thought this was an interesting read..... just points out a few inaccuracies in moores film about bus. there is plenty of websites that do this, but this focuses on the "7 mins" we discussed above!

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/seven_moore_minutes/

sceptre

VinnyL wrote:

i thought this is quite evident when he calls his own people "stupid"

Why would one be unpatriotic for calling one's people stupid?