I thought I read that some prominent capitalist author would vote for Bush because of his “courageous” reaction to the terrorist attacks. I’ve never read anything more short-sighted in my life.
Bush was right to cut taxes to stimulate the economy.
Bush reacted to 9-11 by eventually attacking its main sponsor, Afghanistan. That was sort of right. His response was not timely and immediate. And he doesn’t know how to fight a war to win. That was/is wrong.
Regarding foreign relations, the economy, protectionism, government spending, cutting government, fighting the war on terrroism to ultimate victory, Bush has been an outright disaster.
I, for one, will be voting for (though not supporting) George W. Bush.
How do you seperate “voting for” and “not supporting”? They are the same thing. By voting for Bush, you are giving him the only support you are able to offer him - 100% of it.
How do you seperate “voting for” and “not supporting”? They are the same thing. By voting for Bush, you are giving him the only support you are able to offer him - 100% of it.
How do you seperate “voting for” and “not supporting”? They are the same thing.
A vote simply means that I think the guy I vote for is the best, or least bad, among the viable candidates. IOW, a vote for Bush means that I think Bush is not as bad as Kerry. It does not mean that I think Bush is good.
By voting for Bush, you are giving him the only support you are able to offer him - 100% of it.
You can support a candidate in a number of different ways: by giving him campaign money, by showing up on his rallies, by having a bumper sticker that pokes fun at his opponent, etc. What I think Halley meant by “support,” though, is to agree with his philosophical views and his strategy for the nation.
I’m not convinced that Kerry is the evil emperor that some put him up to be.
John Kerry wants to “cooperate” with the Iranian regime. THIS ALONE is enough proof that he is, in fact, an “evil emperor.” And that’s only the tip of the iceberg…
Bush is a disaster. Kerry is death. Vote disaster.
Kerry is the evil prince, second only to the Clintons. They’re both proudly Toohey, only the Clintons know it.
Kerry wants to give tax credits to companies that accord with his special-interest agenda; Bush wants to reduce taxes across the board without reference to any special-interest.
Kerry wants to give in to any that would attack us and he wants to make us live like cornered rats; Bush is interested in protecting Americans, only the moral ineptitude of the rest of the world prevents him from doing it most effectively.
Kerry wants to cooperate with the Iranian regime? Is there a link or something where I could read about that? I thought Kerry was pushing his “I’m tougher than Bush on terror” rhetoric recently. I’m not defending the guy, merely curious. Though like AutoJC, I can’t bring myself to vote for Bush. His domestic agenda of pushing censorship, faith-based initiatives and “compassion” is far more important to him than defeating terrorism. I also believe that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the greater war on terror, and has failed to make the US more secure. Kerry may not be the answer, but I can’t help but see voting for Bush as sanctioning his evils. And beyond the tax cuts, I don’t think he’s done anything good for the country. Sure, Al Gore would have been worse, but that goes without saying. Going into Afghanistan was commendable, but in the wake of September 11th, even an “appeaser” like Clinton would have probably done the same.
With all this Bush vs. Kerry talk, would any of you consider voting for a third-party candidate, who actually stood closer to Objectivist thought. Like Gary Nolan, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. (http://www.garynolan.com/index.shtml) At least you’d be voting your conscience.
John Kerry wants to “cooperate” with the Iranian regime. THIS ALONE is enough proof that he is, in fact, an “evil emperor.” And that’s only the tip of the iceberg…
Bush is a disaster. Kerry is death. Vote disaster.
Kerry is known to flip-flop on issues. Wait until tomorrow <_<
The present regime in Iran is thought of to be moderate, although I don’t agree with that. As long as fundamentalist Shittes rule the roost with their ayatollahs, AFAIC, the country is an enemy.
Remember that Bush’s strategy with Iran is to negotiate, as well. Vilifying Kerry and NOT vilifying Bush for both being wrong on this issue is just plain short-sighted.
When I vote, it’s not going to be for an Atlas Shrugged scenario like this one!
I’ve been to NewsMax and I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them.
Kerry needs to be confronted as to what his real stand is. After all, he voted for the Iraq war. <_<
General Giap is a leader of a war I actually opposed from day one. Do you really think there was ANY justification for Vietnam?
Regarding Bush Budget cuts, as usual Bush would have his cuts across the board (tyypical of pragmatic politicians), including aid to local police and fire departments. That’s against the role of government to protect the rights of its citizens.
