I've read many debates regarding George Bush and John Kerry. Unlike Bush, Kerry never had a chance to prove himself as a president and show the American people how he could help this country and its people. George Bush had almost 4 years now to make a difference, and in my opinion any difference he made was make our country worse than it was before. I just don't understand why people like Bush. I really don't. I've heard unrational reasons, such as "He is a Christian" and "He is a strong leader", but I have not heard any REAL reasons on why Bush is a good person/president. So pleeease... someone tell me why so many people out there like Bush.

I would like non war related reasons, because i am against the war and therefore I will disagree with almost any reason given regarding the war.
For example: if you say you like Bush because he caught Saddam Hussein, my reply would be that he had no probable cause to go after Hussein. Even if he saw him as a threat, Bush had no proof or real intelligence to have reasons to bomb Suddam's country and capture him. I also don't believe in pre-emptive attacks. I think they are extremely hypocritical and destructive.

So if anyone has any input on how Bush improved our economy, environment, societal problems, scientific and technological advances, or anything along those lines please let me know.

Tell me what Kerry could've done diffently for 9/11 while remembering that Kerry supported the war.

As for Intelligence, I hope you realize that British and Russian Intel also said there WMDs in Iraq. Why are you putting the blame on ONE person? Remember that the President looked for Congress's approval for war! So know that Congress supported fighting as well.

Tell me, what would Kerry have done that would differ from Bush?

Humph, it's not so much that "so many people out there like Bush", it's more like we're seemingly choosing the lesser of two evils with logical deductions, and hoping that it is the right choice for the next 4 years.

^ The above is only a repitition of what've been said over and over and over again in reply to blatant Bush-haters questions/opinions.

Well, if Kerry wouldn't have done anything different, then what makes Bush the lesser of the 2 evils? Unless I read that wrong..

I don't really support presidents. We all know I should be queen..

I don't understand how that would make Bush the less of two evils

The fact he took down a tyrant?

What do you know about Kerry and what he supports exactly, Pikimoo? From what I've speculated, he's definately no good in my book.

And not to mention that I'm one of those staunch Americans who believe that Bush should stay in office to finish what he started.

Err.. no. I don't really know anything about the president's truthfully

But I was referring to what you said.







You implied that Kerry wouldn't be any different from Bush, meaning they are equal. Then you said we're choosing 'the lesser evil'

I dunno

Hmm..




No, I implied that Kerry wouldn't have DONE anything different than Bush in the case with 9/11 and the decision for war. I thought I put a date there to clear up misconceptions.... *checks*... I did.

The lesser of two evils refer to what I disagree about Kerry's policies, and to what I consider his shady past with Communism, plus other unsavory things he said in the campaign speeches.... *shudders*...

Okay, does anyone want to get into the specifics? I may not be very brushed up on my politics, but I can certainly do research.

Oh, okay.. gotcha. I was a little confused.

As much as I don't like Bush, for my own reasons that I've stated before, I do agree with "Fae" when she says that Bush should stay in office so he can finish what he started. I believe that this will be in people's minds when they vote. And will play a huge part in who wins the election.

I don't like that fact that people say that they would prefer anyone but Bush. I hate when people say that because it's like they're saying, " I would prefer to have Fidel Castro than Bush." UGH! But yes, Kerry is no better and no worse than Bush. They practically are the same. I would much prefer Nader . . . but that's just me along with a small fraction of others ; but knowing that there is no chance of him winning, Bush must finish what he has begun.








Even though I don't like him . . .

www.jibjab.com : Nicely summarizes the main differences between Bush and Kerry.

A flash animation is going to tell me the difference? Right . . . LOL

It is...

comradered knows his stuff, taking an animation lightly is completely unacceptable due to his intellectual reasonings.

Whoa...they're treating you like a god now, Minda.

i just have plain out respect.

lol thanks!

i still havnt read anything about wats good about bush btw...

Bush is a major flip-flopper.

In 2000:
- Supported a "more restrained and humble foreign policy" (his own words)
- Promised to cut spending
- Strongly opposed to affirmative action

In 2004:
- Supports invading small countries
- Raised government spending more than any other president in history
- Supports affirmative action

He is trying to move to the left while still appeasing his MIC sponsors ... leading to major neo-conservative bullsh*t.

hm..i dont see ur point here...i thought that u werea lways for bush. but now u say that he contradics himself and cpmpletly spins things around. and not in a good way.

Bush is also supporting the Patriot's Act. In my opinion, the Patriot Act is rewritting the Constitution because it is allowing agencies to look everything on you and what you are doing if someone anonymously accuse you of being a terrorist. It is like back in the days when the Red Scare was around, people were EXILED because they were accused of being a Commie even though they weren't. I don't want McCarthyism to come back.

yeah and not many ppl who should have read the patriot act have read it....kinda likea wich hunt to. if u get accused of being a witch well u are a witch! ! u say someones a terrorist u get monitered for the rest of ur life and later arrested cause they find some kind of evidence that u are a terrorist.

Can any one of the Kerry supporters out there explain this to me?

From the Congressional Record -- February 27th, 1992 Page S2479:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also rise today -- and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity -- to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

Wow -- if only, 12 years later, Kerry would follow his own words...

i'm sorry but what exactly are u trying to prove with this?



I think that there is a big difference between a citizen supporting the war, and the president having the country go to war. The president has all the information/intelligence regarding valid reasons to go to war, while citizens of america can only go by what the white house releases. I know a lot of people who supported the war in the beginning because of Bush's deceits of the reasons for war. Now that the TRUTH is coming to light, more and more people disapprove of what we have done... and still are doing. The president is the one who can take action and therefore has A LOT more responsibilty for his decisions. He is the one who truly knows what is going on. So, I really do think Kerry would have done things differently.. He may have sent to troops to Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama Bin Laden's capture, which I don't have any problem with, but I really dont think he would have done anything in Iraq... since there was NO reason at all.




So you are qualified to say who is more evil simply by the policies you disagree with? I actually find that quite comical. Also, I find it interesting how many americans have been brainwashed by the government/schools to immediately think that communism=BAD. Every government has it's good and bad, so who are we to say that democracry is the best and every country needs to be democratic. Don't get me wrong, I love this country and democracy but we need to get over our arrogance.




sorry but I have to quote myself on this one...


but this is a perfect example on what i am talking about.... this topic was about what good Bush has done for OUR country. It seems like all a Bush supporter can do is defend his reasons for going to war or talk about Kerry's downfalls. SO if anyone has anything good to say about President Bush please tell me. THANKS

What about the fact that he took down Suddam who has supressed Iraq for a long enough time?