10-07-2004, 09:47 PM
I'm amazed at how shallow your views of politics are.
The sole support that I can find for Bush in your argument is that he attacked Iraq and stuck to his guns for attacking Iraq. You are right that Kerry doesn't support the initial attack over there but he does support our troops and would love to see them come home safely and also to see the US finish the job it has undertaken. Now that we've had one president make a stupid decision it would be equally stupid to pull out with out trying to make sure some semblance of stability is in place.
My biggest complaint about the Bushes and Reagan is their lack of foresight with regards to the economy and foreign policy. Reagan benefitted greatly from a global economic boom and strong programs put in place by Carter. Do you remember the term "Voodoo Economics"? It was used by most economists to describe Reagan's approach to the US economy.
You complain about higher taxes if Kerry wins but how do you feel about the lowering quality of schools, roads, hospitals and other public services that have been happening since this "War on Terrorism" began? There have been HUGE tax cuts under Bush's administration and all that money that you "save" is taken out of the programs that make the US such a great country.
Bush seems determined to keep the American public's attention focused on foreign soil and the potential of more terrorist attacks. He has to if he wants to remain in power. The country is going into debt at an incredible rate and the quality of life is deteriorating. And I'm still not entirely sure why Iraq was picked as a country to attack even though there are a number of other countries that have done more to harm American interests or even abused the rights of their own population.
Stop looking for terrorist attacks everywhere. The fact that so many people are in a state of panic means that the terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Every time we attack one of them it turns them in to a martyr for the rest of the world.
I should stop here... I'm just starting to go on and on. I hate the fact that so many people agree that the best way to deal with terrorism is to attack other countries and show how strong our army is. If anything, this approach to dealing with the problem is only going to escalate things rather than make the world a safer place for everyone.
The sole support that I can find for Bush in your argument is that he attacked Iraq and stuck to his guns for attacking Iraq. You are right that Kerry doesn't support the initial attack over there but he does support our troops and would love to see them come home safely and also to see the US finish the job it has undertaken. Now that we've had one president make a stupid decision it would be equally stupid to pull out with out trying to make sure some semblance of stability is in place.
My biggest complaint about the Bushes and Reagan is their lack of foresight with regards to the economy and foreign policy. Reagan benefitted greatly from a global economic boom and strong programs put in place by Carter. Do you remember the term "Voodoo Economics"? It was used by most economists to describe Reagan's approach to the US economy.
You complain about higher taxes if Kerry wins but how do you feel about the lowering quality of schools, roads, hospitals and other public services that have been happening since this "War on Terrorism" began? There have been HUGE tax cuts under Bush's administration and all that money that you "save" is taken out of the programs that make the US such a great country.
Bush seems determined to keep the American public's attention focused on foreign soil and the potential of more terrorist attacks. He has to if he wants to remain in power. The country is going into debt at an incredible rate and the quality of life is deteriorating. And I'm still not entirely sure why Iraq was picked as a country to attack even though there are a number of other countries that have done more to harm American interests or even abused the rights of their own population.
Stop looking for terrorist attacks everywhere. The fact that so many people are in a state of panic means that the terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Every time we attack one of them it turns them in to a martyr for the rest of the world.
I should stop here... I'm just starting to go on and on. I hate the fact that so many people agree that the best way to deal with terrorism is to attack other countries and show how strong our army is. If anything, this approach to dealing with the problem is only going to escalate things rather than make the world a safer place for everyone.
Gullible isn't in the dictionary.