Theodore Roosevelt once said...

[Herzog]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Not trying to start a political fight thread, but I just wanted to point this out, and that I firmly believe in it. There has been a few times that people have called me names and bad mouthed me because I don't agree with the current administration (and I haven't for a very long time now).

I've been called a Liberal, when in fact I'm not a Liberal... some people even reach out on a limb and call me a hippy. Pretty sad when people resort to personal attacks as a means of arguement... Since when does disagreeing with one fraction of the spectrum label you to one side?

Enough with the stereotypical labeling already. Remember, we as people are allowed to form an independent idea. Utah is pre-dominantly Conservative, so I'm curious to know what many of your thoughts are. I want to know why there is all of the name calling in place of rational arguement. I want to know why you feel Bush is doing a good job. Just because our only other option was Kerry doesn't mean we have to support the decisions that Bush has made/is making. Honestly, at the time of the election I didn't think that either of the 2 candidates had the right answers.

I'll be back in the morning to see what kind of **** storm this turns into. Any personal attacks from either side of this discussion are unwelcome and will be handled appropriately.

 

[N-Smooth]

i believe thomas jefferson said something to the same effect about trusting the government and how you shouldn't have to.
when it comes right down to it, i don't spend a lot of time bashing or defending the pres but rather hoping we pull through everything okay. i think it sucks when people bash the war and take respect from the the families of soldiers.
last time i heard the war approval was 57%
very interesting

 

[Jeremy]

what would you have done?

this is not a question for any one individual. it is a question for every body.

what would you have done if you where the US president after 9-11?

would you have sat back and not gone after the people responsible? would you have shown the world that we are vulnerable to these kinds of attacks?

would you have stopped at destroying al qaeda?

would you have continued to seek out and destroy known terrorists? and supporters of known terrorists?

i am not saying that i support our president in all his actions, nor that i dislike his actions. but in his shoes what would you have done? how far would you have gone?

what happens if we decide to pull our troops out now? or if we hadnt sent them in at all.

 

[way2nosty]

I'm a stone cold Republican and what most might call an extreme conservative. Short of Teddy Roosevelt (that man had some serious wevos) My favorite presidents is JFK(Damn Democrat He Said.

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.

Now I don't necessarily agree with everything that the current administration - in fact I have some rather serious issues with the Patriot act, that being said. I side with the current administration and not with the Liberals because of several reasons.

1. George Bush has a backbone, he is a god-fearing man( while I'm not religios I can see the value of this in a leader) He does what he says and says what he does. He can be counted on absolutely. He doesn't back down when the fight is right. You can argue all day long that they found no evidence, and that the intellegence was wrong. I won't beleive it for a second - those weapons are in Syria or Iran theres no doubt about it.

2. I dont really beleive that people that side with the Democrats are all that liberal. I beleive that they are really moderates who like the propeganda. I grew up in Carbon County and I saw some of the most conservative things that the Democrats have done here that are damn good.

3. I have major issues with what the core liberalism stands for and they show me that they beleive that all Americans are incompetent and I take exception to that - Kerry is the worst for this, I'll demonstrate my point.

a. Bigger government more taxes free health benefits for everyone- Bad/Bad/Really Bad! this moves the economy from a capatilist societ to a socialist society, Bigger government means more jobs more government jobs mean more taxes more taxes mean that less money goes in my pocket which means less goes to the average joe running a business which means he quits - gets a government job and the cycle starts over again. Don't get me wrong here - I'm not saying that helping a person when they're down is bad... I'm saying that the government should be as small as possible to meet the needs of the people - Big government killed the USSR and the Russian economy - it';s been tried capitalism is a better model. Health Care for everyone - pretty well means that it will be a state run Health care system look at France. State run healthcare has driven the research end of Medicine down the Crapper, which is why 97% of all medical breakthroughs happen stateside.

2. The anti-war mentality or defeatism that the liberals take is just horseshit. if your team was in the playoffs final game up by 3 would you start talking bad about them. FU(k NO! you'de cheer them on until they finished, as far as I'm concerned they have already accomplished their objective - the got rid of the human rights violator that was doing horrible things to his people. I've lost 2 good friends in the war, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, and I have no doubt what they died for was worth it. I throw it like this if your neighbor was beating his kids and nobody else would do anything about it, would you walk over there and kick the livin' piss out of him, I'm pretty sure that even the bleeding heart liberals would.

3. Abortion - ( I know I'll take **** for this) let me start by saying that I am a rather seveire non-religios person this is purely the ethical person in me. Abortion is Murder - Murder is Murder! with one exeption - if you didn't have the choice, you are not the cause.

In Close I would like to say that I more then agree with Herzog - Adminstrations are not above recourse they should be chastized - kept Honest the Democrat party does that well. They balance the scale extreme liberal to extreme conservatives. so we can walk the line. I think that they take it too far GW does a good job and he's a man that I would stand by with no equivocation.

 

[Hickey]

I have never understood how people can say they are Republican or Democrat. Why would you limit yourself? How can it be that easy to define your ideas and morals? We are all different, not one or the other.

 

[Meat_]

I have no problem with people criticizing anything, as long as they aren't talking out of their ass. And even then, more power to them, as long as they keep their noise pollution away from me.

 

[Tacoma]

I voted for Bush in 2000, and I would have voted for him again in '04... but I am SORELY disappointed with his seeming invisibility and APPARENT aloofness... and the lack of public ass-whooping that I'd give America if I really believed in the things I was saying. Clinton at least had some irritated press conferences.

Utah is predominantly REPUBLICAN, not necessarily conservative. I don't think they're really the same thing anymore hahahah

 

[Milner]

OK, first I agree with Hickey....

My feelings on the war/Bush:
First I did vote for him bith times. Both times more against the others, then for him.... I do not agree with everthing this admin does, nor have i agreed with everything any admin has done.
The war....First, tell me how Sadam is any better of a person than Hitler. Why did the Germans/Jews deserve to be freed, but the people of Iraq do not? Was it the right thing to do? I say Yes. Could it have been handled better, probably, but hind site is always 20/20. As far as loss of life, this has been the least bloody war in history. Look at the stats from any other war, modern or otherwise. The death rate here is a fraction of any other. (OK any loss of life is too many, but lets be realistic....)
Oil....sure it is about oil too, but what is wrong with that? Let see, free a nation from an evil dictator, help establish a new government, and assure good diplomatic relation on oil trade....seems like a good out come to me. Sure it will take time for all this to happen. There is no instant gratification here (we as a society have lost patcience for anything. We want and expect instant/fast gratification....)

I am sure I will really touch a nerve with many, with the following comments, but....
I come from a sociological background, and that is how I view history and our future. War is the way of the world (a very macro view), the way of "civilized" society. I am not saying it is right or wrong, it is just the way it is. War does serve many purposes to society. All great powers in history have conquored to grow. Yes, and eventually they were also conquored. Power is about control, ownership, and fear.. To be the most powerful these are the things you do. If you are not powerful or aligned with those that are, you leave yourself open to be conquored. I would rather be the conquorer than the one being conquored. The idea that we can "all" live in peace and get along, is a nice idea, but not realistic. There will always be a those that want power and will take advantage of the peaceful. Then they will be the powerful and control the peaceful. Once they have power, they crave more. Now it all starts over again.... This argument could go on for pages....you may not agree. Maybe one day I will get back to school and get to do my thesis on this

Just my view. So yes I would rather be with W and an American than anywhere, or anyone else. No I am not a patriot or conservitive freak, just a realist. Would I vote for him again, probably not, but it would depend on my other options. Thank our founding fathers for the foresight to limit the terms of a President. Our sytem is not perfect, but it is the best we have. Don't like it, do your part to help it. No "you" can't effect any huge change, but you can do your part to make it better. I am lucky enough to be able to do my small part everyday I come to work. I challenge you all to DO something ever day to make the world around you better. This is how to effect change.

OK off the soap box now....I will to my best to resist any futher posting in this thread

 

[Amy]

Politics and Religion Suck.

And so to Mean People
HAHAHA!!

 

[mbryson]

.......... Just because our only other option was Kerry doesn't mean we have to support the decisions that Bush has made/is making. Honestly, at the time of the election I didn't think that either of the 2 candidates had the right answers.........

Why can't we seem to get better candidates? I've voted against various candidates for way to long. I'd love to actually support one.


I do support Bush for the most part. I believe he's had to make some tough decisions (and some aren't popular) and he's trying to stick to them as much as he can. I think there are probably better people for the job, but they aren't running. I don't agree with some of his policies but between the two choices, I'll take 'W'. I'd LOVE to see another political party(s) emerge that's not as corrupted.

 

[StrobeNGH]

Why can't we seem to get better candidates? I've voted against various candidates for way to long. I'd love to actually support one.

Because when people do what they feel is right, they have to face a firestorm of criticism and scrutiny. Thus, the 'better candidates' don't run because they don't want to put up with all the crap that comes with public office.

FDR's presidency was the beginning of the end for good candidates.
The press would respect requirests by FRD to keep information confidential. Case in point, Americans had no idea that FDR was confined to a wheelchair until his death. FDR feared that if the world knew he couldn't walk, they would see him (and America) as weak. The result: the press didn't talk about it.
The press also had a lot of knowledge about war plans, but they didn't report on them because they knew that keeping some things secret was important to national security.

After FDR the press began to be more liberal with their reporting, and began looking for 'scoops' to increase their ratings. Also, many in the press felt they were mislead by FDR, and Truman, and that the 'agreement' they had was taken advantage of. As a result, the press began to be very suspicious of the President/government, and a divide formed which resulted in the press seeing themselves as the government watchdog . . .

Today, it's gone past being a watchdog . . . the press is out to get ratings, and the best way to get ratings is to have news stories about subjects/people which a lot of people know about and are interested in. The President of the US, and the War in Iraq are prime ratings getters.

This is why you are seeing many stories about the President and the war . . . they are ratings grabbing attempts.

Ratings have become more important than being a 'watchdog,' and that attitude has found its way into politics. Look at John Murtha, the PA democrat who called for an immediate pullout of Iraq. I live in PA, and there are many news stories about a deal Murtha made with other democrats to get him onto a better committee, if he (a respectable vet) would support their anti-war efforts.
And look at what happened to Lieberman when he went against Dean (and the DNC), and Pilosi to support the war. Dean's brother went to CT to start an anti-Lieberman movement.

So, why don't we have better candidates? Because ratings and popularity have become more important than doing what is right.

 

[mowlasley]

I voted for Bush both times.

That said, I am very unhappy with a few aspects of his administration:

1. No Child Left Behind. This program is the biggest load of crap I have ever seen. There are so many facets of education that need to be taken care of before we worry about high (average) test scores. First and foremost, we need to find a way to attract intelligent people to education. My father-in-law is an elementary school principal and it is very difficult for him to find truly qualified people to teach because those who could teach well would rather make money elsewhere (I don't blame them). Unfortunately, this program is practically the entire basis of his domestic agenda (besides spying on his own citizens).

2. Torture. All torture should be illegal without question. If it is necessary, then those who make the decision will just have to make the decision and deal with the consequences. If it is necessary, they won't mind going to prison for saving innocent lives. Otherwise, don't even come close; avoid the appearance of evil. The Bushies need to stop trying to make loopholes for the CIA. It undermines our mission when we become the monster to beat the monster.

3. Cronyism. I have had enough of Bush's buddies from Texas mucking things up with their incompetence. Libby, Miers, Brown. Need I say more?

4. Isolationism/Imperialism. Maybe the problem is Texans, but this group doesn't seem to think they should take advice from anyone. They don't talk to our allies, even. They talk at them.

5. Propaganda in Iraq. Stop paying to get stories into the papers. Democracy relies on freedom of information and allowing the military/intelligence to skew the press in Iraq undermines our position.

Now, in closing, I must say that I have been impressed with Bush's last few calls. He is finally admitting that there were no WMDs (it takes balls to man up like that). Alito will be fine for the Supreme Court. Things are going decently in Iraq. I never would have in my wildest dreams thought that we would see less than 3000 casualties in Iraq after three years. The political process is starting to get some momentum over there, and the elections are working.

 

[mbryson]

.........So, why don't we have better candidates? Because ratings and popularity have become more important than doing what is right.

Tough to disagree with that. How do we change the press? They are way too 'powerful' and not a government entity.

 

[StrobeNGH]

Also, I think it is perfectly acceptable to criticize the President, or any of our leaders. People who attack those who are criticizing our leaders are scared, or too dang lazy to refute their criticisms.

BUT, all things have a time and a place, and I feel that in a time of war some elements of 'free speech' ought to be stifled a bit for the good of our nation!

The NY Times publishing their article about 'domestic spying operations,' which was on the shelves for a year, is, as President Bush put it, reprehensible!
Their decision to run the story was based not on free speech, or the watchdog duty of the press . . . Instead, they ran the story because a book (by the storie's author) is being released next month which would have 'scooped' the paper. The NY Times has already been scooped by the Washington Post, and LA Times this year, and they ran the story b/c they didn't want to be scooped again.

When THAT is their basis for running a story, I think that allgations of being unpatriotic and irresponsible are entirely appropriate.

Also, why on earth is no one screaming about the Washington Post reporting on TWO TOP SECRET OPERATIONS in the war on terror in one month! Where is the 'leak investigation' on this? Why are we spending millions looking for the person who leaked the name of Plame (a CIA employee who was never under cover, and whose husband would frequently brag about her job as a CIA agent), instead of looking for the person who is telling our secrets to newspapers?

 

[StrobeNGH]

Tough to disagree with that. How do we change the press? They are way too 'powerful' and not a government entity.

You change the press by not giving them ratings. And this is already happening: Newspaper subscriptions are down across the nation.

However, it's hard to change the nation when Desperate Housewives gets better ratings than a Presidential press conference.

I think that we (Americans) are the cause of these problems. We're lazy, and want to be entertained. We can't be bothered to research anything on our own, and depend on the press to spoon feed us everything. Along the way someone figured out that they could make good money off the news if they would throw stories about Nick and Jessica getting divorced in with a report on Iran getting nuclear weapons.

We created the problem, and if we would demand better, we could solve the problem.

 

[Herzog]

I have never understood how people can say they are Republican or Democrat. Why would you limit yourself? How can it be that easy to define your ideas and morals? We are all different, not one or the other.

Agreed 100%.

Keep all of your thoughts and comments coming! I'm really enjoying this thread so far, and not to mention learning a few new things.

 

[way2nosty]

saying I'm a republican is a lot like saying I'm a Chevy man or Mopar Nut or FOMOCO Freak it means that you align yourself with their values, in the case that their values changed alignment or mine, I would ally myself elsewhere.

 

[lenny]

I for one have not voted for Bush, and will never vote for a person that believes that a responsible president will collect databases of information about non-threatening citizens. There is a database with the names of people that have attended peace rallies!!! Sounds a lot like the Cold War era of labeling people communists, and isolating people for those beliefs.

 

[mr_blove]

Here is a article I really enjoyed that seems to me portrays a accurate feeling of a majority of the people on this site. Correct me if I am wrong.



http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,600158025,00.html

 

[Spork]

Here is a article I really enjoyed that seems to me portrays a accurate feeling of a majority of the people on this site. Correct me if I am wrong.



http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,600158025,00.html

Nice article. :greg: