Why did I vote for Bush?

As for Senate, 51 Republicans, 48 Dems,1 Ind.Theres no Democrate control there.
................................................
On May 1st, 200 members of the Log Cabin Republicans,a homosexual presure group, met with senior administration officials in the old Executive office building.Lousiana Log Cabin Republican Randy Boudreax " in 96 Bob Dole returned our check, Now were going to the White ouse. Bush has apointed several openly gay people,(ncluding Michael Guest,Abassador to Romania)to high level jobs.He has refused to overturn any executive orders issued by Bill Clinton that bar discrimination against gays in federal employement and security clearances.Bush pandered there vote before the ellection last time, and he is still.
.............................................
As for the government giving monies to church based charity organazation,it will come at a price,like government regulations. Look at our schools.God forbid.
................................................
Bush is pro or anti depending on what his base core of supporters is.( or what they'll except in leu of who his advassary on the democratic side)We all, I hope, want to stop the illegal flood of mexicans across our souther border. We have heard nothing on how he is going to accomplish this,yet he tells us by registering illegals, there-by making them legal is going to help.Help who?
 
I voted for Bush because he was the best choice at the time and still is. Have you heard some of the crap the Democrats have been saying. Republicans also are the ones to protect gun rights. Democrats will do away with gun ownership in the end.

In short, Bush has balls and the others are castrated.
 
Yellowhammer...

I hate to correct you because I agree with most everything you have posted. I'm a very conservative Rebublican and I look forward to voting for President Bush again.

The Democrats do not control either house in Congress. Republicans hold a majority, but to overcome the filibuster on judicial nominees, 60 votes are needed. Unfortunately, we only have a slim majority (51 to 48, 1 Independent),and not enough Dems are willing to cross the line.

Wouldn't want to upset Teddy and Hillary!

Governors
Republicans 28
Democrats 22
Total 50

Senate
Republicans 51
Democrats 48
Independent 1
Total 100

108th House
Republicans 227
Democrats 205
(vacant offices) 2
Independent 1
Total 435
 
Mangote- You are right. But this only happened midterm. When he took office Tom Dachle was Senate MAJORITY leader. The Dems lost some Senate seats during the 2002 cogressional elections.

You are right about the fillibustering too. That submarined more than one Judiciary appointment.
 
As for the Republicrats protecting our gun rights, "DREAM ON."
I got a questionairre today (disquised fund letter) from the Republican National Committee. A bunch of ridiculus questions, worded to make sure that few showed any decent with our fearless leader. One question about gun ownership. And I quote.
"40. Gun Owners say that there should be a limit to how far the government can go in infringing on their Second Amendment rights. Do you agree?
Yes or No."

This is from Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House. For the Speaker of the house to ask for opinions about how much he can infringe on a Constitutional Right is just beyond the pale.
I have vote Republican since Richard Nixon, but I am tired of rewarding people for screwing me and fellow gunowners. If we get a Democrat President. Too Damn bad. At least they don't pretend to be our friend.
Republicans don't have to protect our rights for there are no consequences when they don't. They think that they have us by the shorthairs. I have a feeling they are in for a suprise in November. Maybe someday our tax and spend anti-freedom Republican party will look back, remember who it was that once handed them the power, and reflect that perhaps they should have "danced with the one that brung 'em.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif OC
 
How many new gun control laws have passed in the past 3 years?

Do you see, in either the republican majority house or senate, ANY activity on renewing or extending the assault weapon ban? Even in commitee? Do you think you could answer the same if the democrats were in charge?

Do you see, in either the republican majority house or senate, ANY activity on ANY gun control legislation of any type? Even in commitee? Do you think you could answer the same if the democrats were in charge?

In WI, the governor vetoed the CCW bill. The legislator scheduled to sit to vote on over turning his veto, just this week. One party is fighting to pass the over turn. One party is doing everything they can to obstruct this. Can you name which party is doing which?

President Bush has not ever, not one time, used any speech or press conference to blame American gun owners to the actions of some scumbag criminal. Do you think this would have been the same if Gore was in the WH?

There are politicians in the house and senate who still demand new gun control laws. John McCain is a RINO. Other than him, what party do the ones bitching about the lack of new laws belong to?
 
The title of this threat is “why did I vote for Bush” and I’ll address that because Stu has done a fine job of addressing everything else I had to say.

I voted for Bush because I didn’t want to spend another 4 years in an America run by someone who had been in office with Bill Clinton and his wonderful wife. Al Gore was from their administration and that was enough for me to know.

In fact as unpopular as it might be for some here, I would have voted for Lassie if she were still alive, before voting for a Clinton clone.

I haven’t agreed with Bush on everything but frankly every morning since 9/11 I’ve thanked the Lord GW Bush was President and not Gore or even worse Clinton. I can't even imagine what kind of limp wristed response would have been mounted by such an administration. Furthermore, I'm sure our liberties would have been destroyed overnight by a Democratic administration.
 
Yes republicans protect your gun rights, if they didn't they'd have to become a Democrate to get ellected to any public office. Do they protect our markets, our jobs.Do they insist on higher tarrifs from incomming goods to lift the burden on the American taxpayer.Do they protect our southern border,or do they propose amnesty as a way to stop the flow.( origonaly proposed by our beloved McCain ) Are they lowering our dept?Let me know when its safe to send them a no confidence vote.
 
I am looking real hard at General CLARK who just might get my vote! I would love to see a real 3rd Party that had the money and backing as the other two existing parties do now. The middle class worker is slowly being faced with his wages being able to buy less and less each year.

BUSH is for BIG BUSINESS /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif at the expense of the middle class people, he cares nothing about the small business man nor does his administration. Only those who help put him in office in the first place. The defense contractors are making a bundle of money off this BUSH WAR in the middle east.

He got us into a WAR.....that is costing the US taxpayer a bundle of money.....not to mention lives that didn't need to be lost. He went after Saddam because of the grudge his father had against Saddam. Poor judgement......Still NO NO NO weapons of MASS DISTRUCTION!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif He lead the American people down a road of disception concerning that issue.

I made more money when Clinton's administration was in office (Their was a HELL of a surplus of money at that time.....what happened to it?)then any other time in my life. BUSH blew off all the funds and put us into one hell of a debt.

Now he wants to send the message, to ALL illegal immigrints that it is OK to keep coming into the USA. The Republicans more so than the Democrates have let many Big Business's move out of this country (telling us it was a Labor problem...high wages) go into a 3rd world country and set up shop and then market that same product back to the American worker at the same price before they moved.

YellowHammer you need to get a grip on reality!
Labor made this country what it is today..........
Workers who formed UNIONS, built this land of ours
not the Illegal immigrants that BUSH thinks it is OK to stick around.....Hell yes he does, cheap ass labor for the ranch in Texas.

Union Labor is a minority.....but a real tool when it comes to building a bridge or skyscraper!
NON-Union workers today would be getting paid half what they are making wage wise, if it weren't for the UNION WORKER.....LOOK FOR THE LABEL /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Trouble is most of those jobs have gone by the wayside......Thanks to DADDY BUSH and his kind.
 
Clark is both a nutcase & a fraud. I doubt he's going to get enough traction to do well.

I find it ineteresting that he's actually running on his record in Kosovo. After all he was relieved of his command there. In civilian terms, that means he was fired.

Why?

We don't know yet. The only thing that nayone has said so far is that it was over issues of character & integrity. So what'd he do so bad?

If he starts doing well in the primary votes, we'll find out.

On jobs, you know what? A lot of manufacturing jobs have vanished, not just under Bush, but under Clinton and before. And it isn't due to any policies or lack thereof, it's because of advances in productivity. The work of people such as myself (software developer), advances in robotics & control systems, computers, etc, has eliminated these jobs. In exactly the same manner that huge numbers of farming jobs were lost once the transition from the horse to the tractor began.

It does not matter who you vote for. These jobs are NOT coming back. Our manufacturing infrastructure is only running at about 70% capacity right now. Simply because overall productivity has increased to the point where that's all we need to meet demand right now.

We used to employ several hundred thousand telephone operators every year. Advances in computer hardware & software has reduced that need to about 80,000. People who used to be telephone operators had to learn how to do something else.

The job market isn't static, and it never has been. If your skills lie in an area where the job market is shrinking, my advice would be to identify an area where jobs are growing (yes, there are such areas) that interests you and go learn new skills.
 
STU.....Thanks for the information about Gen. Clark. I am going to start a close eyeballing of all canidates that are on the wagon for the job on capitol hill.

What really busts my chops is when Republicans claim and believe that every Democrate out there is ANTI-GUN!

I took a poll of our GUN Club and it comes down to an almost even split on political parties. The friends I have are at least 50/50 Republicans & Democrates.........Who own guns. Not ALL Democrates are wanting to get rid of GUNS. I have voted on both sides of the fence, being an independant for over 25 years now.

The Wally Mart stores started in the South, Republican owned by the way. The have forced small business OUT of their towns as well as caused small towns to fold and dry up all across this country, both North and South. Hail to both sides, Democrates and Republicans for letting that happen and SHAME ON THEM TO BOOT! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
The problem lies in the power of party politics.

Keep in perspective that when I'm talking about this stuff I'm rarely discussing private citizens who vote. I'm talking about the people who are either in office or running for office.

No, not every dem is anti gun. However, their party is. At the national level, their entire leadership consists of anti gun people. I don't think there is a single democrat elected to federal office who is pro-gun and holds any leadership position in the party. Look at the senate when jummpin' Jim Jeffords switched parties, placing Daschle in the senate majory leader seat: Each and every commitee was chaired by anti-gun people, and he pucked them.

Not every republican is pro-gun, either. But on balance, the majority of elected republicans are pro, a minority is anti, another minority neutral.

With the dems, it's the reverse: The majority of elected dems are anti, a minority is neutral, and a much smaller minority is actually pro. And the ones who are pro get kicked back in line & controlled by the antis through the mechanism of power granted by seniority. The anti's are in the drivers seats, they prevent the pro-gunners from chairing commitees, from getting their bills out of commitee, etc.

Another problem that Clark has in this election is that he is a political novice. Aside from any shortcomings, he has never held any political office. He has never governed, nor held any position in any administration. The electorate has repeatedly demonstrated that while they don't mind being entertained with campaigns, they do not view the Presidency as an entry-level job and by & large vote for people who have some sort of track record of governance that they can base their decision on.

Even Dean is very handicapped here. Despite being a 20 year career politician, it's all small stuff. His biggest job was to govern VT, with a total population less than many large cities. It doesn't even have a composition comparable to the rest of the nation: 98% white, almost zero industry, etc. Look at the way he sticks his foot in his mouth over the south (I doubt he would take a single southern state, should he win the primary & run against Bush in november). The more he says, the more he proves that he absolutely does not understand the south.

Clark has been all over the board. He's reversed positions on major issues as much as Dean, yet constantly denies doing so, even when presented with audio and video of him saying what he did.

Looking at the 9 democrats -now down to 7, but I'll include the original 9 to help make the point- there is not an actual pro-gun person among them. ALL are far worse than Bush (holds true on the budget as well), so the question I have is this:

Since the real choice boils down this fall to either Bush or a democrat, and all of the available democrats are worse than Bush, what does anyone expect to gain by voting for someone who is worse than the person they wish to replace?

Dean is probably the most pro-gun in the bunch, yet he has made it clear that if president, he will not lift a finger to protect your gun rights, as you don't have any. He says the states should be free to enact any gun control they wish. He said ANY, so I take that to include everything, licensing, registration, outright bans. He wants to keep Brady, keep & extend the gun & magazine ban. Wants close the non-existant "gun show loophole".

Clark owns guns, but he also thinks you don't need an evil black rifle, he wants to keep every law we have, plus keep & extend the gun & magazine ban. Wants close the non-existant "gun show loophole".

The rest want even more than that, no point in detailing it but they want more gun control than that.

John F'n Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, has made a point of making sure that I know that he does not want to be my president. I'm the NRA, and he has flat out stated that he does not want to be the NRA's president. I guess the fact that we value our rights and fight for them serve to make us unworthy of being represented by him. Fine, I hope to accomdate his wishes and make sure that he is not my president /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

On their economic policies, see my thread titled "Defecit Spending" and see which one sounds like a good match for your economic interests.
 
As for Wesley Clark this guy is dangerous, look at what General Norman Schwarzkopf had to say about him during a November 6th appearance on CNBC’s Capital Report, hosted by Gloria Borger and Alan Murray, who asked him what he thought of Clark.
"I think the greatest condemnation against him . . . came from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he was a NATO commander. I mean, he was fired as a NATO commander," Schwarzkopf replied, "and when Hugh Shelton said he was fired because of matters of character and integrity, that is a very, very damning statement, which says, `If that's the case, he's not the right man for president,' as far as I'm concerned."
Click to expand...
(General Hugh Shelton was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.)

Additionally, this quote about Nato supreme commander General Wesley Clark’s command to General Jackson use British paratoopers to storm the Pristina airport which had been taken over by Russian troops during the Kosovo campaign.
From The Guardian, Tuesday August 3, 1999:

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital.
Click to expand...
Clark is perhaps the most dangerous of the Democratics running for president.
 
.Stop all illegal imagration.Being that our southern border is the biggest problem by far,address it first and foremost.The numbers of illegals is between 8 and 12 million from south of the border.Will the Democrates or Republicans in power do anything about it. No ! this year Bush will push foreward for the completion of the Free Trade Area of Americas ( FTAA ) agreement. You wont here him in the State of the Union mention it because it won't play well with Americans.What he will mention is a constitutional amendment describing what marriage is. Does this mean that instead of God we need Govt to tell us what it is.It plays better than to tell us that under FTAA we will be surrendering yet more of our sovreignty to the UN under its charters.What chance do we non-3rd world peoples have of comepetting with the likes of Columbia,Panama, Mexico,Bolivia, Chile and the rest?I guess we'll just give amnesty to every illegal,find them willing employers. ( any company that wants to compete or disolve under our trade agreement)Those will be the jobs Americans won't do untill there starving and have no other option.Do I believe the small bucks I send to a pollitical party will influence there vote, or do the deep pockets of Multi National Corporations influence there vote?Were we not told time and time again, that GATT would give us windfalls because of our high tech communities.Now we see those jobs going overseas. Whats our windfall now? The military industrial complex?As we send manufacturing overseas, or down south, we also send our technoligy with it.We , the American taxpayer loan those companies the moneies to move with , from loans from the IMF. Who's getting the shaft here.Nobody?
 
Originally posted by MO:
[qb].Stop all illegal imagration.Being that our southern border is the biggest problem by far,address it first and foremost.The numbers of illegals is between 8 and 12 million from south of the border.Will the Democrates or Republicans in power do anything about it. No ! this year Bush will push foreward for the completion of the Free Trade Area of Americas ( FTAA ) agreement. You wont here him in the State of the Union mention it because it won't play well with Americans.What he will mention is a constitutional amendment describing what marriage is. Does this mean that instead of God we need Govt to tell us what it is.It plays better than to tell us that under FTAA we will be surrendering yet more of our sovreignty to the UN under its charters.What chance do we non-3rd world peoples have of comepetting with the likes of Columbia,Panama, Mexico,Bolivia, Chile and the rest?I guess we'll just give amnesty to every illegal,find them willing employers. ( any company that wants to compete or disolve under our trade agreement)Those will be the jobs Americans won't do untill there starving and have no other option.Do I believe the small bucks I send to a pollitical party will influence there vote, or do the deep pockets of Multi National Corporations influence there vote?Were we not told time and time again, that GATT would give us windfalls because of our high tech communities.Now we see those jobs going overseas. Whats our windfall now? The military industrial complex?As we send manufacturing overseas, or down south, we also send our technoligy with it.We , the American taxpayer loan those companies the moneies to move with , from loans from the IMF. Who's getting the shaft here.Nobody?[/qb]
Click to expand...
Ok maybe I don't agree with everything you outline here but you have some points here. So what's your solution to these problem? Do you see one of the Democrats providing relief to these problems? Do you see that there is a snowballs chance in hell of anyone from anyplace other than one of the two major parties being elected to the Presidency of the United States?

I have this feeling that you want things to go back the way they used to be.(sometimes I wish that too, in fact a lot of the time) You want heavy industry in the United States employing blue collar American workers by the millions. That isn’t going to happen regardless of who is elected to the Presidency of the United States. For better or worse those days are gone. The whole industrial base of this country has changed as Stu outlined above, and the technology and economics which gave rise to those changes are here to stay.

Additionally we have to realize the changes in this country didn’t take place in a vacuum, they occurred at least to some extent as a response to the desires of the American people. There are a large number of people in this country who aren’t going to work in the fields no matter what. With current technology most of them aren’t needed. A great many of them aren’t going to work in jobs involving a lot of manual labor or unpleasant working conditions and so those jobs go to the people who will take them. That hasn’t changed from the first days of the republic.

I know GW isn’t a saint, he’s a politician, many times he’s more concerned with power and how to hold on to it than finding solutions to some of our problems. However at the present time I don’t see an alternative on the other side that represents any of my views. Do you have an Democrats providing relief to these problems?
 
Re; the labor unions making this country, well as a 30+year union member, I'd like to point out that they helped to break this country and alot of businesses, and are some of the most corrupt organizations in the country, and they also helped to put themselves in the position they are in today. Not trying to flame anyone, but after 30 years of paying dues, and them trying to coerce me into giving money to the socialist party they support, I would guess I am entitled to my say. And yes I got into alot of trouble with the union by voicing my opinion to their faces.
Barry
 
In Clintons 1st term as president, Dick Morris stated" we will steal there issues so they have nothing to run on"(This they did with a balanced budget and welfare reform).All they realy had to do for there liberal supporters, was give them just enough so they wouldn't leave the party in the next ellection.Today we have Bush stealing two of there issues,Medicare Reform and Aids Funding for the UN .Now he'll give conservatives just enough to keep us in line. Governments 1st and foremost responsibility is the defense of the nation.Why would we put our lives in the hands of foreign governments not all that friendly.Our technoligy goes with the companies that leave us. Allready most of our computer needs are based overseas. Some of these needs are defense related for our weapons systems.I think your right,clearly there are two choices,niether very good, one worse than the other.Does this mean we're finished? .........................................This is not the USSR in the 1930's where we have only two choices,Stallin the moderate or Trosky the hard liner.We here in this nation are given real choices, it's up to us to make the difference in which way our respective parties swing.The democrates swing left, the republican under Bush swings both ways.Which way will he swing once he's re-elected ?
 
YellowHammer you need to get a grip on reality!
Click to expand...
What "reality" would that be? A Democrats version of reality?

First, I am in favor of securing our borders. ALL of them. However, NAFTA makes that virtually impossible. NAFTA was Clinton's baby, in case you forgot.

That Union crap don't cut it either. Like Stu said, a lot of union "skilled" labor was made virually obsolete by technology.

Unless you know something I don't (possible) most union workers work for "Big Business". I would think "big business" would benefit unions.

The Wally Mart stores started in the South, Republican owned by the way. The have forced small business OUT of their towns as well as caused small towns to fold and dry up all across this country, both North and South.
Click to expand...
If my memory of Economics serves me, this is what is known as Capitolism. Capitalism is what this country was built on, and benefits the consumer.

If anyone thinks the Democrats serve your best interests, by all means vote for them.

But, I'm sick of the "Boy the economy was good when Clinton was Pres." The economy was on its way DOWN toward the end of his second term. And what most seem to forget or don't understand, it that the good economy under Clinton was a result of Reaganomics. Does anyone know how long it takes the economy to respond to economic stimulation? Doesn't seem like it. The economic policies of Bush are just now starting to turn things back around.

If anyone can say "The country's going to Hell in a handbasket, but boy the economy sure is good", and continue to vote that mentality, them I'm not the one that has a problem.
 
NAFTA would have been signed into law even with Bush Sr.in office.It was not the " baby" of Clinton alone but of our ellected officials in Washington. How on the one hand can we claim victory on welfare reform and balancing the budget, yet lay blame on NAFTA at Clintons feet.How can large corporation be the friend of unions while they outsource jobs to 3rd world nations .We pass laws in the US making it impossible for our companies to compete against foreign compettition,then do away with the tariffs,. The National Association of Manufactures( NAM) " compliance cost for regulations can be regarded as the silent killer of manufacturring compettiveness" the report revealed that the regulartory,tax and mandate burden is at least a staggering 22.4 %( nearly $5.00 per hour worked) to the cost of doing bussness in the U.S relative to our foreign compettitors.President Bush and many members of Congress favor more outsourcing , more L-1and H1-B visas,and more imagration overall. At a Dec. 15th press confrence,President Bush stated, "I have constantly said that we need to have an imagration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee"We all know that virtualy every foreign citezen would gladly leave there nation to come here and work. Is this good.How is that going to help U.S workers?
 
Back
Top