The Good in President Bush, I would like to know... Options

[Alpha240]

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.

[jo3]

[quote=sweetx305](from comradRed) and those tax cuts were for rich people, who were mostly republican and supporters of Bush.

7. Bush's tax cuts were for the rich, making the rich richer and poor poorer. i don't see any good in that. Bush is making his supporters happy and that's it.[/quote]
that's the most uneducated thing i've ever heard. why would tax cuts benefit the rich people? because they pay the most taxes. if you paid millions of dollars for taxes, and someone else paid a few thousand, you would expect to get more tax cuts than those who paid less. if not, then you're stupid.

[quote]2. "Flipping off the UN" shows that Bush could not justify his reasons for war. The UN is an international policing group, in order to keep things right. But isnce we are america we can cause all the chaos and terrotr we want. I mean, if Germany decided to invade a country against everyone's wishes, do you think people would stand for that? i highly doubt it.[/quote]
Look at what the League of Nations (pretty much the UN of the 1920s) did to us. the only reason they didn't accept anything we proposed was because the ones with the power in the League didn't like what we had to offer. they didn't care about their safety...they had their own personal agenda.

thats true with what happened in recent years. France was Iraq's trading partner, and if the US attacked, then it would hurt France's economy. i doubt world safety was #1 on France's list.

[quote=sweetx305]3. What could have Hussin done when Bush asked for WMD, since apparnetly Iraq didn't have any? I would have been pissed if i was Saddam. I mean, the US was asking him for something he apparantly doesn't have, yet we own the most WMD in the world. just a lil hypocritical.[/quote]
and if i was the United States, i wouldn't believe a single thing Saddam said. he killed millions of people and brought fear to millions more. if your enemy, someone who promoted the very things that you were against, said that they were innocent, would you really believe it?

[quote=sweetx305]4. The economy is not doing well at all. Our unemployment rate is at an all time high, and our national debt is at an all time high.[/quote]
education is not doing well at all. our stupiditiy is at an all time high....please get your facts straight. bush has done nothing but help the economy. yes, it was declining, but guess what? we were in a recession, and recessions are inevitable. have you heard of the business cycle? if not, then take an economics course.

in order to get out of a recession, you have to spend lots and lots of money. doing so stimulates business, and businesses can hire more people, so those people get money and can buy stuff. that's why the government is spending billions of dollars, and that's why we're deficit spending


[quote=sweetx305]I can't say what Kerry has done because he did not have 4 years to prove himself, like Bush. Both Kerry and Bush can promise what they want, but like I said actions speak louder than words. Knowing that Bush did not fulfill most of his promises, atleast I can see that he is not a man to trust. One thing I do like about Kerry is his promise to lower educational fees, such as college tuition. Also, he is one to further the advancement of science and technology, unlike Bush who is hindering stem cell research which is imperative to many medical advances. ( this hits me close to home, being a biology major and knowing the importance of stem cell research and science and technology as a whole).[/quote]
so you'd rather bring in kerry, who hasn't been in this whole situation and would have no clue what to do, then have bush clean up everything that he's done in the past 4 years?

not only that, stem cell research is a moral issue. bush doesn't believe in killing babies (yes...they're not "born" but they're turning into babies)

about lowering college tuition...how would he do that? put more money into education? where would he take money out of? maybe the stem cell research that you want so badly. or maybe from the military, since he wants to arm the US Armed Forces with spitballs...

[quote=ComradeRed]After Bush gets out of the White House, we should pass a Balanced Budget Amendment requiring the budget be balanced by cutting spending and not raising taxes. [/quote]
and we should also pass a Never-Go-Through-A-Recession Amendment requiring the US to always be in an expansion and never a contraction. but guess what, it will never happen. like i said earlier, spending is what stimulates the economy, and that's exactly what Bush is trying to do.

[quote=ComradeRed]We'd also end the War on Poverty. Instead of $400 billion we spend each year, we'll just give every poor adult $20,000, enough to make them not poor any more[/quote]
and within a year, they'll be poor again. look at lottery winners. do they keep the millions of dollars that they win? do they invest it? most of the time, 99% of the time, no. actually, they end up in a worse position than before. not to mention that probably 25% of the people will buy drugs and alcohol with the $20,000 that they'll receive. the government, however, can spend it on relevant things.

[quote=ComradeRed]Sure, the one downside is we'd never be able to conduct foreign policy ever again, but foreigners are overrated. In fact, preventing the government from doing foreign policy is acutally a good thing [/quote]
and we can turn into Communist China and Russia and not allow any foreigners in. The reason China was doing so terrible was because they isolated themselves and therefore could not:

1) learn from other countries
2) trade

the reason the US and other open countries did so well was because they:

1) learned from other countries
2) traded with other countries

[quote=ryfitaDF]but what do we need weapons for? looking cool? or overthrowing saddam? we'll probably be spending a few more billions on the war on terror, aswell, what with osama and al-quida still on the loose. [/quote]
then i have a good idea. the US should get rid of all guns in the country. why would we need them anyways? looking cool? or protecting ourselves. that's why the military has weapons.

it's ridiculous how you say that. i wanna see you fight overseas and ask the US to stop spending money on weapons.

[quote=ComradeRed]Weapons are good for defending yourself ... but $500 billion worth is going a little overboard.[/quote]
maybe you're right...but it's not like the weapons we make and use cost only a few dollars.

[quote=sweetx305]Bush is in the "wrong" because he is only allowing research on 60 stem cell lines, and THAT'S IT. Once those are used up, there would be no more research on embryonic stem cells. He also cut funding for embryonic stem cell research, but increased funding for research of stem cells taken from an adult, umbilical cords, placenta, and animals. Atleast he increased funding for that, but it's the embryonic stem cells that are most promising to finding breakthrough therapies and cures to many disease.[/quote]
omg...quit bitchin. bush is against abortion, and he does not want stem cell research, but he tried finding a median to please both sides. but being the selfish person you are, you want Bush to allow research on all stem cell lines. think about the millions of other people who are against it, and then put yourself in Bush's shoes. then, tell me what you would have done

[quote=ryfitaDF]Kerry is rich already. he doesn't need more money. and, unlike bush, he actually knows what it's like to be in the army and serve.[/quote]
if Kerry knows what it's like to be in the army and serve, then why is he trying to reduce the weapons that the military has? any soldier would want weapons to use, because if you don't have them, then you're dead

[quote=ryfitaDF]if iraq and afgahnistan are plotting against us and we want peace we should'nt give them more reasons to kill us by, say, going to war with them.[/quote]
lets say there was a bee hive right outside your home. you don't wanna get stung, but you have a chance of getting stung, even if you try to stay away from it. so do you kill the hive or do you let it stay there and grow bigger and bigger?

[quote=ComradeRed]This makes him (Bush) unworthy to lead as commander-in-chief.[/quote]
and Kerry wants the US Armed Forces to have less weapons. that's like giving your football team no pads or helmets. this makes Kerry unworthy to lead as COMMANDER in chief of the Armed Forces.

[quote=barelyy_coherent]No offense, but if Kerry were elected president 4 years ago 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all, let alone him having to do something about it. [/quote]
there's no way to prove that

[quote=barelyy_coherent]Of course they never hijacked the plane because they hated Bush. I should have said that 9/11 would have happened, but maybe not in that big or extreme a way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but considering how powerful the US is, how hard would it be to stop another attack on the World Trade Centre? Don't you think that Bush could have done some more to protect America? Don't you think if he did a better job, the number of people who perished could be reduced?[/quote]
when's the last time that the US had been attacked (before 9/11)? i'm pretty sure a long time ago. there had not been something of this caliber since 12/7 (pearl harbor). we weren't expecting it.

[quote=uninspiredfae]No, I don't think that Bush could've done anything seeing how we couldn't have predicted another episode of Pearl Harbor (well, not that I know of). The problem is that our Intelligence agency isn't as up-to-date and (I'm sorry to say) not as dependable like we thought. [/quote]
i pretty much restated what you said, but i have something to add

our intelligence agency is pretty up to date and reliable. think about how much more we'd go through had we not have an excellent intelligence agency. of course this is all just speculation because i can't prove it, but i think we'd be in even deeper sh!t if we didn't have get good intel.

you may ask, so why did 9/11 happen? no one's perfect. we can't play God. we're not omniscient


woowow that was a LONG post...i wonder if anyone will read it haha

push Ctrl + F and type in your username, so you can see made a rebuttal to any of your statements