So good you had to post it twice, eh?
Bush is "Infinitely" better than Kerry? Let's see: There's virtually no differences with their plans in Iraq. Kerry's not going to abandon the hunt for Al Queda.
Gotta disagree with you on that, friend. Bush believes that we were right to go into Iraq, and his goal is to build a democracy there, thus providing a beacon to the other despotisms in the Middle East. Kerry's first goal will be to get American troops home as quickly as possible. How can Kerry handle Iraq effectively if he doesn't believe in the cause?
So tell me, what is so "infinitely" better about Bush?
- The aforementioned War on Terror. As a libertarian, there are precious few things I want to see the government spending money on, but national security is one of those few things.
- Bush cut your taxes. Kerry will raise them.
- Bush opposes affirmative action, and his administration filed an amicus brief against the University of Michigan's policy. Kerry will continue this legalized racial discrimination, which should be anathema to every libertarian.
- Kerry has stated that he will not appoint any judge who does not support Roe v. Wade. Whatever your stance on abortion, Roe was a Constitutional abomination.
Badnarik is the only clear choice for a return to constitutional government.
There is only one person on this planet with whose views I agree 100%, and that is myself. Nevertheless, I do not write my own name in for President, because my vote would be totally wasted and would have zero chance of affecting the outcome. So will your vote for Badnarik.
But even if Badarik actually stood a chance, I would not vote for him because of his disastrous position on the War on Terror, including the battle in Iraq.
posted on 10/28/2004 6:18:25 PM PDT
There's no edit or delete button that I'm aware of. That's why you saw my reply twice.
Now, your point that Bush believes we were right to go into Iraq is academic now that we're already there. While I am no fan of John Kerry, his position on Iraq is virtually identical to Bush's, and frankly, his goal to get the troops out as soon as possible is the right position as opposed to one that admits there's no end in sight, with no clear objective as to the final withdrawal of our armed forces cited. Will this be another Germany and Japan or Korea where are troops are stationed there for another 60 plus years? That ought to improve the way we're looked at by the people of the middle east!
Just because Bush has sent the military after the terrorists doesn't mean he deserves a free pass to another 4 years. People who support the president simply because of those three little words "War on Terror" I think tend to cite that without much thought, and use it as an easy way to weasel out of defending his decidedly nonconservative ways and in some cases outright incompetence. They should spend more time investigating just how effective Bush has been fighting it. Recruitment for Al Queda is reportedly up. Reckless and ill-advised planning on Iraq, thumbing our noses at our allies, and emboldening the anti-American sentiment throughout the middle east isn't what I'd call a passing job for the War on Terror.
There are basically two differences between republicans and democrats. The "R's" like to throw us a nickel every now and then, while the "D's" want to tax us into oblivion. Abortion is the other difference. But like the Cato Institute put it so well, giving Bush a pass for the tax cuts he has proposed is kind of like thanking a thief for returning $10 of the hundred that he stole from you. The president, with his "oh, just charge it" mentality on the deficit and failing to veto one single spending bill from Congress is counterproductive to the cycle that forces the hardworking taxpayers to repay the bill that these two 'party animals' have run up. If you're a libertarian, (which I highly doubt) you cannot carelessly dismiss these facts, blindly support George Bush, and wake up tomorrow morning without feeling just a tad intellectually dishonest.
Affirmative Action? What good is Bush's opposition to it when the Supreme Court whose majority was appointed by republicans rules the way they do? You're grasping here, friend.
George Bush has had the luxury of 4 years in office, and a good portion of it with a Congress that will rubber stamp practically anything he does. What accomplishments has he made against the "Constitutional abomination" of Roe vs. Wade? Abortion is the rallying cry of every conservative during each election cycle yet they go home dejected and unhappy every single time with no positive results to speak of. When are you people just going to drop that useless issue? The majority of Americans are against you on that anyway.
In closing, I will continue to vote my beliefs, my ideals and my philosophies, whether my candidate loses the election or not. You can continue to vote republican if you wish, and walk away yet again with that familiar sinking feeling in your stomach, when you realize that the candidate you voted for will do nothing to reduce government, return us to liberty and the Constitution, and carry us further into the socialist abyss to which this country is inevitably headed.
I sincerely hope you're happy about that.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson