McGentrix wrote:joefromchicago wrote:McGentrix wrote:That's BS Joe. Bush, despite my disagreements with how Congress has wasted my money, best represented far more of my interests then any other presidential candidate. Though I am for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility, supporting civil equality, I am also for anti-terrorism, pro-life, strong US presence in the world, free trade, globalization, and many other things.
Too bad Bush is acting contrary to your interests on those issues as well.
How so, give me some examples so I know your not just talking out of your ass Joe.
Talking out of my ass? I'll leave the ventriloquism to experienced practitioners such as yourself.
ANTI-TERRORISM: there have been more terrorist incidents worldwide during Bush's six years than during Clinton's eight. In terms of terrorist attacks on American soil, Bush's record is worse than Clinton's. Furthermore, the Iraq War and Bush's middle-east policy has made the US a more likely target for terrorist attacks. As for Iraq itself, the "flypaper" theory has worked in reverse: instead of the war drawing terrorists to Iraq where they can be killed by US soldiers, US soldiers are being drawn to Iraq where they can be killed by Iraqis who would, all things considered, be much happier killing each other.
PRO-LIFE: Bush has approached this issue with the same intensity and drive as Reagan and his father: i.e. none whatsoever. Although Reagan made some noises about supporting a "right to life" amendment to the constitution (without, of course, actually doing something to get such an amendment passed), Bush hasn't even done that. The most that Bush has done is to veto a stem cell research funding bill, which doesn't do anything to protect life, since the fertilized ova that would otherwise be used for research will instead be destroyed.
STRONG US PRESENCE IN THE WORLD: Where to begin? Bush has alienated many of our allies, and his policies have made the US more unpopular throughout the world than probably at any other time in its history. With a large number of troops tied down in the Iraqi quagmire, the US is not able to project force effectively in other hot spots throughout the world. The strongest presence in the world that the US can now project comes exclusively from internet loudmouths who cannot or will not put their own lives on the line to serve their country.
FREE TRADE: Bush caved in to domestic steel companies and put tariffs into place that the WTO found to be discriminatory, and only removed those trade barriers when confronted with the prospect of retaliatory tariffs on the part of the EU. Furthermore, Bush's unwillingness to cut or eliminate farm subsidies led to the demise of the Doha Round of the WTO negotiations on trade and tariffs.
GLOBALIZATION: If you mean an increasing move toward global governance (Bush I's "new world order"), then you must be joking. Bush has effectively thumbed his nose at the UN, even before promising, and then reneging on his promise, to put the invasion of Iraq to a vote by the UN security council. His interim appointment of John Bolton, who once claimed that "one could lop off the top ten floors of UN headquarters and no one would know the difference," as UN ambassador clearly proved that Bush was a unilateralist, not a globalist.
MANY OTHER THINGS: I'll leave those to your imagination,
McG: if you think that Bush supports these issues, it's clearly much better than mine.
