NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been seeing a lot of conservatives/neo-cons and other Bush-supporters telling us why Kerry sucked, why Bush was better, why we had better stop criticising the administration, why we need to trust the government and so on. They have also been telling dissidents to prove themselves or shut up.

Well, now it's your turn.
Defend George Bush as Commander-in-Cheif of the U.S. This doesn't mean tell me why he was better than Kerry or McCain or anyone else. This doesn't mean go after Clinton. This means tell me why you think George Bush is doing a good job at his job.

When you are given a choice between bad and worse which do you pick? I do not particularly like Bush, but I also did not like Kerry. On top of that Kerry seemed much less personable than Bush did. So pretty much, both were bad, but at least I could relate to Bush as a person, I couldn't do that with Kerry.

When you are given a choice between bad and worse which do you pick? I do not particularly like Bush, but I also did not like Kerry. On top of that Kerry seemed much less personable than Bush did. So pretty much, both were bad, but at least I could relate to Bush as a person, I couldn't do that with Kerry.

You can relate to someone who was born into incredible wealth from one of the most powerful families in the nation, graduated from two ivy league schools, and has been the head of several corporations?

Plus, why is being personable and accessible a trait that is important to a president? I thought the president was suppose to be exceptional.

When you are given a choice between bad and worse which do you pick? I do not particularly like Bush, but I also did not like Kerry. On top of that Kerry seemed much less personable than Bush did. So pretty much, both were bad, but at least I could relate to Bush as a person, I couldn't do that with Kerry.

I said please present Bush on his merit alone. Don't compare him to other candidates or people.

News flash: Not all Republicans like Bush. It is perfectly acceptable to have supported him just because said supporter disliked the opposition. You have no room to set defense criteria for the other side.

Is it true that the youth voted sucked>?

Ill tell you out right what are his merits.. He brought us out of a recession faster then any president has.. a recession (fuel by corporate scandel and international crisis) which primarly was born before his administration (not placing blame on Clinton, but then i dont atribute the economic boom to clinton either). You may bring up the trade deficit.. but this was born under clinton and NAFTA as well as lose trade agreements which favored china to begin with. He has given leadership in the face of political destruction.. He made the chioce for IRAQ as the best choice he felt was avalible. Not because it was popular or unpopular, but because he looked at the facts he had, and made an excutive decision. (and do not be simple to think we the public ever saw the same facts he, the congress, or the united nations were ever prived to view.. all of whome ulimatly agreed was true; resolution 441). He has acted as well as a politican who looks at both sides.. ie. Stem cell research.. Remeber non existed before him.. for those yearned for the posiblity he gave them access through limitied stem cell lines (embrionic) but those who belive it to be morally wrong he included as well by LIMITING then resitricting further government promotion.

For me he has proven he can be presidential and not a poll follower, he can be inclusive for different sides on a deeply divided issue, and he has faced great obsitcals yet we move on today with a growing economy and job market (though not all where it could be) .

As well for me he offered better options for the future of our domestic issues (social security, welfare, education) then kerry ever did.. Im not saying Bush isn't without fault.. i dont agree with many decisions he has made.. but i would rather have a leader who leads.. then someone looking for the poll ratings to tell him where to go.. It all depends on what you think a leader should be!

WTF do you mean stemcell research. The guy is pushing for a worldwide ban on theraputic cloning. Which would make it a hulluva lot easier.

All you need to know about U.S support for stem cell research is the the U.S is not the world leader in it.

and to New Astrolia .. its true the youth vote by in large is weak, they did come out to vote in some numbers atleast this time around.. though not all voting for kerry as many expected.

this is going to drag us off in a tangent but..

sometimes what is easier.. isn't what is right...

Maybe we shouldn't be asking if we CAN do a thing.. but if we SHOULD do a thing..

Perhaps the US isn't the world leader.. but i dont even rember it being discussed before the BUsh administration took a stance on it

Ah, good. Maybe when this thread is done, everyone will realize that neither candidate was deserving of the job on his own merit.

also remember.. (as people like to mix these two up)

Stemcell research does not wholely equal thereputic cloning.. .. there are ways to conduct stemcell research (adult line stemcells) which are already proven effective in humans and are more morally acceptable.. while embrionic poses more problems and questions with no difinitive answers..

people need to stop looking for the short cut.. IF your goign to be cloning embroys.. it does not take a big jump to envision cloning humans..

Is it really so surprising that young people don't vote? The youngest a president can be is 35. What kind of representation is that? We might as well be voting for Margaret Thatcher.

Ill tell you out right what are his merits.. He brought us out of a recession faster then any president has.. a recession (fuel by corporate scandel and international crisis) which primarly was born before his administration (not placing blame on Clinton, but then i dont atribute the economic boom to clinton either). You may bring up the trade deficit.. but this was born under clinton and NAFTA as well as lose trade agreements which favored china to begin with. He has given leadership in the face of political destruction.. He made the chioce for IRAQ as the best choice he felt was avalible. Not because it was popular or unpopular, but because he looked at the facts he had, and made an excutive decision. (and do not be simple to think we the public ever saw the same facts he, the congress, or the united nations were ever prived to view.. all of whome ulimatly agreed was true; resolution 441). He has acted as well as a politican who looks at both sides.. ie. Stem cell research.. Remeber non existed before him.. for those yearned for the posiblity he gave them access through limitied stem cell lines (embrionic) but those who belive it to be morally wrong he included as well by LIMITING then resitricting further government promotion.

For me he has proven he can be presidential and not a poll follower, he can be inclusive for different sides on a deeply divided issue, and he has faced great obsitcals yet we move on today with a growing economy and job market (though not all where it could be) .

As well for me he offered better options for the future of our domestic issues (social security, welfare, education) then kerry ever did.. Im not saying Bush isn't without fault.. i dont agree with many decisions he has made.. but i would rather have a leader who leads.. then someone looking for the poll ratings to tell him where to go.. It all depends on what you think a leader should be!

The US economy isn't doing well at all. Its currency went from second to third place. The idea was that the Euro would be of similar value than the Dollar. Now look how cheap Dollars are. He also made a not-so-smart move with the steel-protectionism. Very un-Republican, very stupid. Because Europe has a lot more US products on which they can place ermbargos and limits. Also, tax cuts for the rich is not helping the economy. Tax cuts for wealthy corporation might, because rich people will just buy themselves another villa.

And he did not act appropriately with Iraq. The real threat at that time was Al-Qaida. Iraq did not do anything to rile the USA. Saddam might have killed many people, but the current situation is worse than Saddam. Roughly thousand American soldiers died, not counting mercenaries. The civilian casualties are much higher. If Bush wanted to safe the Iraqis from Saddam, it's high time someone came and saved Iraq from the USA. He has no valid reasons for being in Iraq. There was no proof that Saddam posessed WMDs, he was not planning terror attacks on the US. And the fall-back argument that he wants democracy in Iraq is neglectible, because he should have said that from the start, and made it a real issue instead of the WMDs bogus. And actually, I believe that Iraqi democracy will have the same background as Spain with ETA. Something tells me the insurgents won't go away with the elections, and that the USA will be in Iraq for a loooong time unless they want it to fall to a new regime. Of course, Iraq could also turn into another South-Vietnam or Chile or Cuba. Where the US keeps the corrupt government in place and fights the ones who oppose it in a bloody war. I think failure is as likely as success now. Bush could have bet a million dollar on it that this would happen and still insists on going to war with a country that, I repeat, has not provoked the USA for five years or so. I know Saddam was a bad person to have in charge, but the longer Bush remains president, the more I am convinced that he is just as bad, and also a much bigger world problem.

In fact if u listen to what analysts say it is greatly to the disadvantage of the European market that the Dollar value drops.. America is a great importer of European goods. Europeans on a whole are vastly more concervative when it comes to theri disposable income saving 2.23% of their disposable income where americans only save .8% .. to this note coupled with many laws limiting Euro buisnesses from acting more compeditivly (like holding longer store hours, or offering massive sales to effect prices) European buisness are held back from growth potential.. many European buisnesses rely on American buyers to export to.

As the value of the dollar drops americans can afford less european goods which will lower our imports from Europe.. only to the disadvantage of European buisnesses beacuse European themselves are less likly to buy in the same numbers as americans.. In otherwords European growth is fixed on American buying power.. European buisnesses are already beginning to worry about the drop in the Dollar value.

And if your talking about our tax cuts.. youll know (as i stated in my argument) most ecnomic anyalysits already have determined that it was those tax cuts that enabled us to leave the recession as fast as we did.

And in a post 911 world.. any country supporting terrorism as Iraq was (NOT ALQUEDA BUT TERRORISM IN GENERAL) was and is a threat. And Iraq is far less likely to become anything like south vietnam becuase Iraq's on a whole do not support the insurgency.. the insurgency is made up of an estimated 40% foreginers... Also despised by Iraqi's.. they may not like the Americans but they dont support the insurgency as those in the vietcong did...

As far as im concerned Bush made the right decision with the intelegence that he had with him.. It is clear the intelegence was compelling as the congress empowered him, and the UN supported him (as far as resolution 441) .. any UN opposition beyond that can be tied directlyt o the Food for Oil scandel and the true motives of France and Gernamny to try and sustain their massive investments in IRAQI oil industires.

This is not to say the intelegence wasn't wrong and that the reason we went in essentially wasn't wrong.. since there were no WMD.. but the decision was right.. and our precense now is an invetiable one.. we cannot simply leave IRAQ as it is.. as it would destroy the middle east.. and more importnatly have grave effects on primarly Europe