A 'Liberal With Sanity' Votes For Bush

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Why have I endorsed George W. Bush when I don't agree with him on a single domestic issue? Because I believe the issue of international terrorism trumps all other issues. I don't believe the Democratic Party has the stomach and commitment to deliver on this issue. I believe terrorism will be with us for many years to come. So long as Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd are considered major leaders of the Democratic Party, and so long as we have radical candidates like Howard Dean, whose radical-left supporters have been described by the press as "Deaniacs," the Democratic Party will be limited in its ability to serve the country well in times of crisis.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/151/story_15112.html

I always liked "Ed"!

I have been agonizing over this issue for months. I, like Mayor Koch, do not care for Bush's social policies. In fact, I think that some of them (like his attempt to create an amendment banning gay marriages), are downright idiotic.

Bottom line though, we have terrorism right at our doorsteps. And it won't go away. And it needs to de dealt with, in an extremely strong, and efficient manner.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,481 • Replies: 51

No top replies

Perhaps there are more ways to deal with terrorism besides simply using brute force.

The brute force approach is what got us to where we are at today with terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

One liberal? Okay ...

0 Replies

How do you think Kerry will be weak or inefficient, though? That comment is about Democrats in general as represented as Kennedy (not a candidate at all) and Dean (never a serious candidate IMO) not Kerry.

Even if one takes as the premise that you want to be strong and efficient on terrorism, how is Bush better than Kerry on that one issue?

0 Replies

None of you are voting for freedom...you are voting for safety out of fear....that means the terrorists have won......

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

How do you think Kerry will be weak or inefficient, though? That comment is about Democrats in general as represented as Kennedy (not a candidate at all) and Dean (never a serious candidate IMO) not Kerry.

Even if one takes as the premise that you want to be strong and efficient on terrorism, how is Bush better than Kerry on that one issue?

That is what I would like to know too.

0 Replies

Funny. Here's what jumped out at me...

"During my mayoralty, I occasionally endorsed Republicans in the Albany Legislature. I didn't always agree with many of their positions, particularly their opposition to a woman's right to an abortion... But I believed those individuals had demonstrated a willingness to lend financial support to the City of New York which was then on the edge of bankruptcy.

Dang! Did he just admit to being a politician willing to be bought? Well then, good riddance. He'll be much happier in the Republican party.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Perhaps there are more ways to deal with terrorism besides simply using brute force.

The brute force approach is what got us to where we are at today with terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

What do you think would have been the best way to deal with Hitler and the Axis powers? Do you believe that a peaceful approach would have been superior to the approach we took?

0 Replies

Re: A 'Liberal With Sanity' Votes For Bush

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Bottom line though, we have terrorism right at our doorsteps. And it won't go away. And it needs to de dealt with, in an extremely strong, and efficient manner.

Since Bush is too busy with Iraq to have any interest in your stated concern, who are you going to vote for?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Perhaps there are more ways to deal with terrorism besides simply using brute force.

The brute force approach is what got us to where we are at today with terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

What do you think would have been the best way to deal with Hitler and the Axis powers? Do you believe that a peaceful approach would have been superior to the approach we took?

what's the comparison?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Perhaps there are more ways to deal with terrorism besides simply using brute force.

The brute force approach is what got us to where we are at today with terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

What do you think would have been the best way to deal with Hitler and the Axis powers? Do you believe that a peaceful approach would have been superior to the approach we took?

what's the comparison?

It's just a question.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Perhaps there are more ways to deal with terrorism besides simply using brute force.

The brute force approach is what got us to where we are at today with terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

What do you think would have been the best way to deal with Hitler and the Axis powers? Do you believe that a peaceful approach would have been superior to the approach we took?

The better analogy is our fight with Communism. Containment worked even with a compromise in Korea and a defeat in Vietnam. Our eventual triumph over Communism shows that brute force is not always the best solution-- brute force may very well have lead to nuclear holocaust.

We can keep our freedoms, avoid sending our young to die in foreign lands and still live in a free society. This choice between peace and liberty versus war and security is a false choice.

I choose peace, liberty and security. History shows that when we hold to our ideals, and use creativity and courage, we can have both.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Perhaps there are more ways to deal with terrorism besides simply using brute force.

The brute force approach is what got us to where we are at today with terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

What do you think would have been the best way to deal with Hitler and the Axis powers? Do you believe that a peaceful approach would have been superior to the approach we took?

The better analogy is our fight with Communism. Containment worked even with a compromise in Korea and a defeat in Vietnam. Our eventual triumph over Communism shows that brute force is not always the best solution-- brute force may very well have lead to nuclear holocaust.

We can keep our freedoms, avoid sending our young to die in foreign lands and still live in a free society. This choice between peace and liberty versus war and security is a false choice.

I choose peace, liberty and security. History shows that when we hold to our ideals, and use creativity and courage, we can have both.

I did not make an analogy. Is there some reason why the question I asked mustn't be answered.

0 Replies

As the administration was yelling and screaming about an "asymmetrical war" being different than any other war in the past, there is no comparison. Of course, they've dropped that in recent months as being too much for Bush's little noggin to understand.

0 Replies

Stopped 'em cold at Poland.......it was a different situation for sure and yes I hear you saying that you're not comparing the two.....

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Stopped 'em cold at Poland.......it was a different situation for sure and yes I hear you saying that you're not comparing the two.....

My question was very simple, and surely could be answered fairly quickly and without much effort. I am curious how you would have applied the stated philosophy to WW2. If you are actually in the right, then surely you aren't afraid of a question.

0 Replies

The Cold War was a misnomer as there were hot wars going on around the world during that period and in one way or another the U.S. was involved. The Cold War didn't end, it just changed its shape.

0 Replies

Stopped em cold at Poland...... quick and without much effort...as requested....unless you're just trying to pick a fight in which case, as a pussy liberal I surrender on bended knee........please don't hurt me....

0 Replies

I never try to pick a fight, although sometimes I do try to make people mad enough to answer the f.... question. But, I had asked whether you would have preferred to see peaceful means employed against Hitler and the Axis powers. I am not sure how your answer relates to my question. Are you saying that you agree that war was the answer to the Axis powers? I don't understand your answer.

0 Replies

War was the answer to the Axis powers.

0 Replies

A 'Liberal With Sanity' Votes For Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know